The Betrayal of Freedom in Europe: Back in the EUSSR

Very good article about the shape of European "democracies".
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2783

I can't really add anything to your post... the statements of these European 'leaders' seem to come directly from the 'Illuminati' papers or the 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'...an 'unreadable' constitution', and 'all new texts will have to be hidden & disguised in some way'!

Not sure what Zion has to do with any of this, but it practically REEKS of globalists who are not *quite* traitors, but definitely would have no qualms selling out their own country to some vague "ideal" that benefits only themselves....
Joe, other than questioning the Zionist part (I don't think they are controlling this one-its much more sinister) I agree with you on this one.
Even here in the US they keep trying to do similar things-Clinton wanted us under UN banner- and every time people here get wind of some globalist agenda that would dissolve our borders- and our sovereignty- the politicians try to re-package the (you know what it is) so they think we either 1. Do not understand it or 2. Think we like it.
Well. I don't like it. I also agree with Mr. Sarkozy-seems he can smell a rat when it's around as well.
John P.

joepilsudski, lesser...

I respect you. You have interesting approach but, forgive me if I suggest that you need to change your focus.

Instead fighting an maybe (maybe even not) exaggerated threat from jews, communism, fascism, socialism, neo-colonialism, etc... Slavs miss the essential point (i myself sometimes) that they are fighting each other, e.g. rockets in Poland against Russia, radar in Czechia against Russia, Ukrainian society deeply divided by the West, Serbian society deeply divided by the West, strong influence on internal antagonisms by the West on dissolution of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia...

The policy of powers from so called West in the Slavic lands is divide et impera- mutual conflicts, segmentation, dependence, control. By false standards of our masters if Slavs of different religious background try to be closer, that is categorized as fascism and racism. It is desired and correct if Slav has more understandings for closer cooperation with non-Slavs, even other races, then with people of its own kind. If Slav want to survive as Slav and show that he care for other Slavs (no matter all differences), that isn`t demonstration of humanism, open minded thinking or multiculturalism but backwarded self-isolation.

A good thing in all this mess is that this comedy can't go on forever, some day It must fall down and It's rather sooner than later.

The sooner they listen to the people, the better are the chances for the EU to do good for the people. By 'the people' I'm referring to everyone, amongst whom conspiracy theorists are in a minority.

Also I don't see how the Jews are involved here ;) Those people are definitely globalists but this is not the worst thing... The worst thing is that they are socialists and this is really dangerous utopia.



How do you feel about North American Union? ;)



Is not for the sake of democracy this is OK to rape this democracy?




Soviet Union lasted quite long, so it appears that we need to prepare to watch this pathetic democratic farce par excellence...

Quoting: JohnP

Not sure what Zion has to do with any of this, but it practically REEKS of globalists who are not *quite* traitors, but definitely would have no qualms selling out their own country to some vague "ideal" that benefits only themselves....

No, no...I'm not talking about Zionism here...but have you ever read the so-called 'Illuminati' papers or the 'Protocols'?...they are basically an outline of how governments/shadow governments will enslave the peoples by every possible
strategy of deception, manipulation, etc...who knows who wrote these documents
I am referring to, but if you read them, you will find the strategies discussed are
being implemented almost to the letter in present day 'democratic' institutions...the
post about the EU made me think of them.

Can you rephrase that into a sentence?

It's not okay. It's no good for the EU which is supposed to be founded on democratic states working together.

In EU you cannot influence the important decisions.They are made by the Brussels beurocracy.They seldom present an issue to the people to vote.

What about The Betrayal of Christianity in Europe: in the Eurabia

shrubco=NAU

....and there you have it. My biggest complaint about Pres. Bush, his father, Pres. Clinton, all of them are the same in this regard. I absolutely support the war in Iraq, having been there and knowing I will be sent back again-but that does not remotely suggest I support Bush et-al in their slow, steady march to make us all global "cattle" to be controlled by a few wealthy people here or in Brussels or wherever.
When the "government" assures you it only has your best interests in mind-run.
Free people can decide for themselves-which is why I support some things but am vehemently against others...
NAU-when the reality of that sinks in, I fear many politicians are going to wonder what happened to the once peaceful, stupid Americans they foisted the plan on...
No accident all the recent laws trying to ban firearms ownership for the citizenry's own protection. Colonial British rulers tried to tell us the same thing-and got our firearms one bullet at a time.
Sorry, lol got carried away.
Rant concluded, and I agree with you.
John P.

Yes,and most of the people shooting back were continentals too. Oh how you guys love to play the oppressed freedom loving revolutionary card,as long as you guys are the only ones who can be revolutionaries.Funny how you never see that you are actualy now the Redcoats and the rest of the world are having Paul revieres riding by on a daily basis.
With your fear of federalism how do you justify the existence of the United states,isnt it just a whole bunch of seperate states that over the course of a century or so were forced/coersed or bribed into forming a union? Is it now an evil empire? Or ,more rationally ,normally a success story that occasionally gets things drasticaly wrong?
Or am I missing the point,you learned your lesson through the States war of the 1860s and now want to warn the rest of us.
Ps, Joe, when will you accept that whenever someone starts talking about "protocols of the elders of zion" that all sane ,rational people start giggling as it is an undidsputable fact that this book was written as a sick hoax?

isthatu, it would seem you lack a large bit of background on U.S. history, from your post, which would take quite a bit more space than we have here to explain, but here is a start:

The separate states in the U.S. all have individual constitutions, but there was no century long coercion/bribery to unite them. Under colonial rule they were all separate-and equally British. They were united during the fighting, knowing that there was no chance for success (or even being taken seriously) if they did not.

Did continentals fight the revolutionaries? sure they did. British troops are British troops, some did come by ship, and some from shorter distances...it does not matter.

You say Americans are the "redcoats" of the current world-but I could just as easily point out that even in our own revolution, we were not attacked by some opposing nation, but rather troops from our OWN nation (Britain) were sent to "keep us in line".

We had drastically inferior treatment compared to subjects elsewhere (for instance, under colonial British rule, it was a HANGING offense to locally manufacture a metal shovel. These were required to be purchased, shipped, and taxed-from Sheffield).

When people started complaining and formed groups to protest, colonial British governors brought in more troops for our "protection" and insisted the colonists turn in their weapons...and the first shots fired were apparently warning shots by troops under Gen. Gage-followed by aimed fire-at exactly one such instance. "Lay down your arms you damned rebels, or be shot like dogs!" was apparently Gen. Gage's version of that "splendid English diplomacy" which works so well elsewhere....
(Gage's troops routed the colonists, and marched into Concord, where they themselves were savaged by colonial forces waiting for them, forcing retreat....)
...Had England practiced some of that "splendid" English diplomacy mentioned elsewhere in the forum, and simply treated British subjects in the colonies fairly compared to the ones in England proper-(instead of sending troops to arrest, hang, and kill...their own people) perhaps the Union Jack would still be flying over here, and there would be no "USA"for people to complain about...

Surprisingly, if one looks at most of the original flags during the US revolution, one will notice most of them were simple battle flags, and that most of them bore the Union Jack(GB flag for people who do not know) in some fashion; many actually thought that they would fight only until London saw fit to give them proper representation....

.....So...based on your analogy...if the colonists are like the Iraqis-then that would make Saddam's army the Redcoats keeping them in line under a dictator(if you wish to make it a hereditary dictatorship, then call him a king)....so the only equivalent I can see to a superpower intervening, would be the French army-which under the Marquis de Lafayette, helped turn the tide for us Americans...not the redcoats.

Its a safe bet, even in those days war was about certain global commodities; I wouldn't be surprised a bit if the main reason the French helped us had less to do with some liking of Americans (after all, even Gen. Washington was a colonel in the British army just a few years prior....shooting at Frenchmen...) than the fact that France and England were both more concerned with sugarcane and spices from the Carribean- the French were all too happy to tie Britain up in the colonies...and distract them from the real global struggle which was actually already going on between England and France.
At any rate, all of this...
It is irelevant, and I think you missed the whole point of my post, part of which is, whenever a country's government is getting too powerful over its citizens-one of the first signs-they take the weapons first, but only after convincing the subjects...er..."citizens" it is for their own good...
Anyway, one of these days I'll figure how to make a point in a more concise way.....
John P.

Islam is eventual future of Europe. But firstly this continent will be ruined as usual by socialists. We should of course oppose non-European immigration but first and foremost oppose internal enemies.

Please dont, I like your in depth posts,gives me something to really chew over,thanks. Yes,I realise my post probably comes accross a little hostile,not the intent.As to the Revolotionary wars I admit they dont really figure too much in British history,dont take this as it being a british loss it is hidden,the Victory of 1812 is equally obscure.
I will take exeption that you think an inserection in the then colonies would have been delt with harsher than one in "mainland " Britain. This is not the case,Troops were regularly called out to quell riots and peacefull demonstrations and stealing a loaf of bread was a hanging offence in the UK back then. ( and please,lets stay off the subject of capitol punishment,you must see the irony of a US citizen using it as an argument against Britain,how many people were "legally" executed in the US in 2007?and in Britain?).

Sorry,I was wrong with the figure of a century,as it clearly started in the 1790s with US expansion and land grabbing of French and mexican Territories,then seperate states with seperate constitutions that were not compatible leading to the civil war and then well ,as an example,the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 60's clearly demonstrates that the US is a federal conglomarate that has states with wildly differing outlooks that still somehow remain united,I ask again, with that in mind,why are Americans in general scared of or against European federalisim?


Oh My God, someone quoting Adolf Hitler on PF,now that cant be right........

Who? Hitler was exactly one of those socialists whom ruined this continent in the past.

OMG, Hitler a Socialist....Dont make me LMFAO please. I think you are taking the party name a little too literaly.

Stalin, Lenin and Mao were true communists? Does Tony Blair is really socialist? Does David Cameroon is really conservative? True socialists, communists or conservatives are at the bottom, they are called "voters" and they decide about nothing important. When I discuss mainstream politics, I use all these labels only to describe those who practice for example socialist demagogy like Hitler did. We need to call them somehow. Beside of that thanks to this we later see which ideology created the worst creatures.



Not only name, read their program. You could find there all typical socialist/communist slogans. Centralization, nationalization, welfare, free health care. That is how they won elections. This version of socialism was simply upgraded by extra racial nonsense.

There are no true ideologists.Only Bush is a true Bushist.
Hitler practiced nationalistic demagogy,not socialistic.Socialists are internationalists by definition.

I disagree. Not all socialists are internationalists (national socialists, social conservatives) and not all internationalists are socialists (liberal globalists).

Definition of "socialism" from wikipedia:
Socialism is a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation.[1] This control may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state or community ownership of the means of production.


At the start of its existence nationalist movements were mostly modernist, economically liberal. Everything changed after the great depression in the US (1929). At that time suddenly many nationalists abandoned market economy and switched to socialist positions. Numerous national socialist movements flourished all over Europe. Still some nationalist leaders (not a racists!) like Franco or Pinochet practiced liberal economy. So nationalism itself cannot be linked directly with any economic system.

This post more related to the topic. Treaty must be ratified but soon it might become valid.

Crow wrote:

What about The Betrayal of Christianity in Europe: in the Eurabia

This article is written by an Israeli author, and features many links/references to American 'neo-con' functionairies...when have the Jews been staunch defenders of a
Christian Europe?...never...they, in fact, especially at the leadership level, hate Jesus Christ and view Christianity as the enemy...it is convenient for them to now vilify Arabs/Muslims, because these people are a stumbling block to their goals of complete domination of the Middle East...they, in reality, look on the large influx of Muslims into Europe with glee...the 'enemy of my enemy' is my ally, as long as he doesn't step onto my turf...and by the way, who/what leaders were behind these 'liberalized' immigration
policies that brought a large Muslim population to Europe?...immigration is a good thing in controlled measure, but when the 'immigration' starts fragmenting an established nation, then you have big problems!
I would suggest this about the European Union...If, as a cultural focus, it emphasizes
the promotion of traditional European Christian values and culture, this would be good...
it doesn't...If, it would be merely an economic union, designed to promote and develop European industries, with the goals of improving the living standards/economic of the average European, this would be good...does it promote this?...If it was designed to break down bureaucratic regulations affecting citizens of European nations with regard to travel, commerce and communication, this would be good...does it promote this?...the
European Common market seemed to work well, but now you have a centralized bureaucracy in Brussels, an unreadable 'constitution', and statements by many of the leaders that convey a message of deception and arrogance toward individual nations and the people...You be the judge...as an American citizen, we have major problems in this country to deal with, but I watch Europe to draw comparisons, and to see if some of the same forces may be in play in both areas.

In EU you cannot influence the important decisions.They are made by the bureaucracy in Brussels .They seldom present an issue to the people to vote.

Sooner then later, patriots from Slavic countries would found each others. Those patriots, those brotherly ranks would be last line of defense, only difference between survivor and oblivion.

Slava!

Finally somebody raised the issue of referendum in Poland! Surprisingly Polish Ombudsman Janusz Kochanowski wrote a letter to out PM asking for referendum. He is not against just want democratic solution to win.

http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1663465,11,item.html


Outstanding how Polish politicians from all our pathetic parties started yelling how bad is this idea. Lets analyze what is their problem:

Mr Zbigniew Chlebowski (PO) claims that this would be irresponsible to hold a referendum. Why? Because he is afraid that voters turnout would be below 50% and then referendum would be invalid. (realistically they would push this forward even if that would be the outcome, like abortion referendum in Portugal recently) This is proper time to remind "our" politicians, those responsible for our constitution why 50% turnout is needed. Obviously because they planned from the start to make similar excuses like Chlebowski to avoid direct democracy in action. Beside of that, they have a year to change this law and as I know all parties claim to be "democratic" this shouldn't be a problem!

Mr. Wojciech Olejniczak (LiD) claims that he would support referendum if The Charter of the Fundamental Rights would be fully included. So this is classical "I support democracy BUT".

Mr. Eugeniusz Grzeszczak (PSL) oppose referendum because "Formula of ratification by parliament is commonly known"! Even the fact of being a member of peasant party doesn't justify making such dumb comments.

Mr "Patriot" Tadeusz Cymanski (PiS) is too afraid of his voters reaction to clearly say for what he stand. So he "don't know".

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PO) claims that they would need a year for propaganda in mass media to brainwash voters. (Strangely for the only country in this EU camp which stick to its constitution, it is absolutely possible to hold a referendum. I mean Ireland. Tusk promised second Ireland in recent PO election campaign. Perhaps he should start from Irish democracy? ) So he also oppose. Funny how they need a time, they spend so much of time hiding this treaty from peoples attention. Lets quote author of the constitutional project once again.

Valery Giscard d'Estaing
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly [...] All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way."


Democracy in action like hell! This the most important reason why the Swiss don't want to join the EU. They would need to abandon direct democracy in favor of Brussels bureaucracy.

Lesser, you would be surprised how are people all over the Europe and Slavic world aware that something isn`t OK with EU.

i got some pics from my Polish friend, during worse (eh, it can be worse for sure) days of EU/NATO pressure on Serbia, as gesture of their support

I already presented those pics (but this thread looks so suitable for them) and in case that you didn`t sow them, here they are ...





What you think Lesser man?

NOP have some good points in their program like for example on the EU. However some other policies completely marginalize them.

yes, its a fact. Too bad.

Anyway, i like those posters.

NO COMMENT