Archive for the 'English' Category

Apr 04 2008

Immigration – A Benefit, or not Working?

The issue of immigration just won’t go away. Prime Minister Brown has defended Labour’s open-door policy, following the recent report by the House of Lords economic affairs committee suggesting that immigrants brought no significant economic benefit to the country. Immigrants (approximately 190,000 each year) make a “huge contribution” to the economy, Brown has insisted, and for this reason, presumably, he has also refused to put a cap on the number of those entering the country to find work.

While the Labour government seems to be losing supporters every day – especially on the issue of immigration – the Prime Minister is not entirely alone. There is more to it than money, we are assured.  As is often noted, the broader picture reveals immigrants working long shifts for low wages in jobs that British citizens simply will not do – e.g., physically exhausting agricultural work or assisting in nursing homes. Another benefit is, of course, the much-touted appearance of the Polish delicatessen, Afro-Caribbean food stores, and greater range of restaurants.

As a nation we like benefits. But every plus comes with a minus. Multiculturalism has meant the dumbing down of British culture. Free education means that many leave school unable to spell or construct coherent sentences. Free healthcare has meant overworked and underpaid hospital staff (often foreign nationals), mixed-sex wards, and poor sanitary conditions leading to outbreaks of deadly viruses.

Yet, more deeply-rooted in the psyche, perhaps, Britain (like many European nations) has created a welfare system far in advance of such entrepreneurial nations as the U.S. or Hong-Kong. Benefits for the infirm and long-term unemployed, along with free healthcare, etc., are not enjoyed by the citizens of every country, perhaps especially those that are economic world leaders, and that may be part of their success.
There needs to be support for those who find themselves either seriously ill or unemployed through no fault of their own, and healthcare should be generally available, I think. However, such protections only work in countries where there is a sense of nationhood and responsibility to the nation. America, which has some benefits for the unemployed, still speaks of the “protestant work ethic”, and the optional of picking potatoes for little pay for a few months or more is generally regarded as preferable to taking government handouts (which is not to deny that the country has a problem with illegal immigration). In Britain this is increasingly not the case. The benefits culture, it would seem, is becoming hereditary.

In a report this March, National Director of Health and Work Dame, Carol Black, has disclosed that 1 out of 5 children in Britain has at least one parent who is not working but claiming benefits instead. In some cases, she states, there are families that have not worked for two or more generations.

Today there are also nearly 100,000 people claiming incapacity benefit for alcohol and drug dependency – twice that since the Labour Party came to power in 1997.   To many immigrants benefits for those who refuse to work must look incredible. Yet Britain’s benefits culture not only provides them, indirectly, with an opportunity for a higher-paying job than they might find in their home country, it also includes them in the long line of recipients. According to the Treasury migrant workers are claiming 28 million pounds (approximately 56 million U.S. dollars) every year for their children who remain in Eastern Europe.

Comments Off

Apr 01 2008

Dispatch from the Eurabian Front: Austria, European Parliament, the Netherlands, Belgium

The Austrian authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years. Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”

The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She also warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Susanne Winter and she was placed under police protection. Today, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter will be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols” (Verhetzung und Herabwürdigung religiöser Symbole). If convicted she may have to serve up to two years in jail for her opinions.

However, Alfred Hrdlicka, the Austrian “artist” who depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted. Nor will he be. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is “incitement to racial hatred.”

Neither has Mr Hrdlicka been threatened by Christian assassins for his “opinions.” The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the former do not aim to kill those who offend them, but the latter do – which is perhaps also why the European authorities fear the radical Muslims and persecute their opponents while they subsidize those who insult Christians.

Meanwhile, it has become clear that only 144 of the 785 members of the European Parliament have supported the proposal of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch politician who lives in hiding following death threats from Islamists, to establish a European fund to protect people who are stalked by assassins for their opinions. Ms Hirsi Ali is under de facto house arrest because the Dutch authorities are only willing to protect her while she remains in the Netherlands, but not when she travels abroad. Due to the lack of protection she is confined to hide-outs in the Netherlands.

Last month, Henk Hofland, a leading Dutch journalist, proposed that the Dutch authorities lift the police protection of Geert Wilders, another politician whom radical Muslims want to assassinate for his opinions. Several Dutch individuals and organizations have lodged complaints against Mr Wilders for incitement to racial hatred because he made a 15-minute film, called Fitna, to express his views about Islam.

VNO-NCW, the Federation of Dutch Employers, has ordered its lawyers to see whether it is possible to claim damages from Mr Wilders for the loss of income which Dutch companies may possibly suffer as a result of a boycott of Dutch products by Muslims who are angry at Mr Wilders and at the fact that the Dutch have not been able to shut him up. “Companies like Shell, Philips and Unilever are easy to recognize as Dutch companies,” VNO-NCW chairman Bernard Wientjes told the newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad. “I do not know how rich Geert Wilders is, or how well insured he is, but if we suffer from a boycott, we will investigate whether it is possible to claim damages from him.” Last November, Doekle Terpstra, a member of the board of Unilever, called upon the Dutch to “rise in order to stop Wilders” because “Geert Wilders is evil and evil has to be stopped.”

Today in neighbouring Belgium the government’s anti-discrimination body CEOOR warned bloggers and websites to remove their links to Wilders’s movie. The CEOOR states that the movie aims to foster “fear, distrust and hatred of Muslims.” The anti-discrimination body has asked the Belgians to be “vigilant” and to report “cases of incitement to hatred and/or discrimination.”

Comments Off

Apr 01 2008

Big Business, the Driving Force behind Immigration

laughland-controversies.gif
In Britain, the House of Lords has reported that the economic impact of immigration is minimal and has concluded that it ought to be capped. The report is seen as a decisive defeat for the government’s long-held view that immigration boosts the economy by increasing production.

The Lords have found that, while the total size of the economy does rise when there is high net immigration, this does not mean that prosperity as such rises. Per capita GDP remains the same. In other words, the size of the economy rises only to the extent that there are more people in the country than before. The economic benefit of mass immigration is zero.

The social costs, of course, are very considerable. The most significant of these is the impact on the cost of housing. The report finds, among other things, that if the present rate of immigration continues, then the average property will cost 10.5 times the average income in 2031. Eight years ago, the ratio was 4 and now it is 6.5.

The inflation of property prices causes immense social and economic damage, although Britain’s numerous property owners have for years deluded themselves that they are getting richer because their houses go up in price so spectacularly. When property rises in cost, the whole economy suffers since all businesses need premises from which to operate. Families suffer, too, because people have fewer children if they cannot afford enough bedrooms to put them in.

The Lords’ report is a huge vindication for the brave campaigning of Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch, and someone whom I have the honour to know personally. Since immigration exploded when New Labour came to power, this former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia has managed brilliantly to put immigration on the agenda without ever giving off so much as the slightest hint of racism. On the contrary, his measured tones and careful statistics have ensured that he is listened to with great respect. The report is nothing less than a total vindication of everything he has been saying for years.

Why, then, has there been such a firm lobby in favour of immigration for so long? The answer lies in one of the most arresting facts about modern politics – a fact which, in my view, even the most redoubtable experts like Andrew Green have perhaps not quite taken on board. I refer to the unlikely alliance between big business and the New Left.

This alliance reached its apogee under Tony Blair, who was known for his slavish admiration for rich people whose hospitality he so often enjoyed for free. But it extended throughout New Labour. Peter Hain, the onetime anti-apartheid campaigner, a man whose progressive credentials could hardly be more immaculate, had to resign in February because he had accepted £100,000 from a pharmaceutical magnate, one of whose companies is facing prosecution for the biggest fraud ever alleged in the United Kingdom.

The alliance between big business and the New Left is not, however, based merely on the greed, opportunism and venality of politicians, or on the desire of big companies to buy political influence. Instead, it is based on ideology. Specifically, big business is in favour of immigration not only because it drives down wages – allowing profits to remain high without companies actually having to sell more products – but also because it is culturally in favour of multiculturalism.

The entire ethic of post Cold War globalisation, indeed, is profoundly anti-national. The multinational corporation, like Marx’s worker, “has no country”: the modern international corporate executive is more at home in an airport departure lounge or a Hilton hotel than in a village pub. He scorns any notion that the legislative framework of a state should give preference to the fixed inhabitants of that state, and instead tells the government that he will simply re-locate, like some disembodied spirit, to another part of the world if the tax regime is not favourable to him. To put it bluntly, multinational companies are vehicles of cosmopolitanism, every bit as powerful and influential as the more intellectual proponents of multiculturalism and the end of the nation-state.

The big corporation likes immigration because immigrants drive down wages and are typically not unionised. Big companies do not care if immigrants do not pay taxes, or if they make extra demands on schools and hospitals, because the state picks up the bill for that. They do not care if there is general inflation, or sector-specific inflation such as in property, because they have their eye on next year’s bottom line, and on their Christmas bonus, not on what will happen a generation hence. Big companies operate on the principle “privatise the profits, socialise the losses”, demanding that policies be pursued which increase their income because the costs are passed onto the taxpayer and society at large.

As Pat Buchanan argued brilliantly in The Death of the West, economic history shows that periods of high immigration do not coincide with periods of high economic growth. Japan grew spectacularly in the period 1955 – 1993 but immigration over that time was zero. The periods when America’s prosperity has risen are those when immigration has been low; the economy stalls, by contrast, when it is high.

Ever since Mrs Thatcher, the predominant ethic in British politics has been pro-business. The slogan is “free trade”, but that is not the same thing. Of course it was necessary in the early 1980s to free Britain from the excessive shackles which the trades unions represented; but, in domestic politics as in diplomacy, there are no permanent victories, especially not if political parties stop thinking, as the Tory part did long ago. So deeply entrenched has “free trade” now become that it is a taboo which unites the whole political class. Any suggestion that the activities of business should be limited or directed by the state is dismissed as Luddite economics, reactionary thinking worthy of a flat-earther.

In fact, Britain and many other European states are themselves just as much in hock to the demands of big business now as they were to the labour movement a generation ago. The pendulum has now swung too far in the opposite direction. Let us hope that the breaking of the taboo of immigration will mark the moment at which it starts to swing slowly back.

Comments Off

Apr 01 2008

Fitna: We Want a Sequel

I liked Geert Wilders’s movie Fitna. It is impressive how much they managed to squeeze into just 15 minutes [see Fitna here (below)]. I notice several of the comments at Jihad Watch say Geert Wilders could have made it worse. Yes, he could. He left out quite a few things, but what he kept was authentic and bad enough.

We should remember that the people reading websites such as Jihad Watch or Atlas Shrugs or Gates of Vienna are perfectly aware of how bad Islam is. This movie was not made for them. It was made for all those tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people out there who don’t trust the official propaganda about Islam, but still don’t fully understand how bad it is. Being too harsh (even if what is described is true) could put some of them off.

I believe this movie struck a good balance between showing Islam for what it is and still making it possible for the average person to digest the message. It is highly effective.

But I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald: We want a sequel! What about “Pirates of Muhammad: At Islam’s End,” starring Johnny Depp? Yes, I know, it would be too cute, but at least people would see it. As long as Keira Knightley plays Aisha, I’m happy.

For the comments about Jews, you should read Andrew Bostom’s upcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. There is much, much more.

I especially liked the agitated gentleman waving a sword, screaming for Jihad. I thought Jihad was about inner, peaceful struggle against yourself, a bit like yoga? He didn’t seem to enjoy any inner peace, though.

And if Jihad is about better education, as I have heard from my local newspaper, why didn’t he wave a pencil?

Maybe it was a pencil sharpener?

Comments Off

Apr 01 2008

Olympic Hypocrisy

It beggars belief that the BBC could possibly justify blowing the sort of Taxpayer's Money that will be required to sustain 437 employees in suitable luxury for several weeks at the Genocide Olympics in August, not least in light of the fact that Britain shall only be sending 300 people to compete in this tawdry propaganda exercise.

This astounding but unsurprising information only comes to us because someone managed to nick a series of files detailing the travel arrangements for the Jumbo Jet load that will be in China for, presumably, rather longer than the sixteen days of the games themselves. After all they all have to get over their jet lag and set up what ever it is they have to set up. I bet this lot will be in China for the best part of a month and you can be sure they won't be staying in Mrs. Wu's B&B.

And to what purpose, you may ask?

Forget the usual platitudes. This is about projecting China on the world stage and about legitimizing the Chinese Communist Party as its rightful government. This is about sweeping under the carpet China's shameful participation in the Darfur Genocide. This is about justifying China's colonization of Tibet and the supplanting of its indigenous people with Chinese settlers.

China hosts the Games and China will try to milk them for all they are worth for the greater glory of The Chinese Communist Party and the evil creed of communism as it is practiced there. Already the Chinese have been creeping up the medal tables in recent years as athlete after athlete emerges from the shadows to seize a medal and world record until, last time, they came second to the USA by a short head. Who would bet against them topping the table this time and claiming it as a triumph of the Party?

The reality is that, even before we contemplate the brutal and illegal colonization of Tibet, the regime which hosts the games this year is a brutal, undemocratic oligarchic gerontocracy which maintains a vast oppressive Gulag for those who dare to challenge the established order. It plans to use these games quite ruthlessly as a propaganda tool to help underpin its dictatorial rule and advance its Imperialist cause in the underdeveloped world. In this it will make Hitler's 1936 Olympic Games look positively modest in its aims.

Meanwhile it will continue its criminal activities in Tibet, a colony in which it is deliberately trying to change the demographics in its favour, a circumstance which is, undoubtedly, an international crime for which the Israelis are routinely excoriated but which will be ignored, providing always that the dictatorship you run is inclined to the left. Elsewhere, in pursuit of the oil it so desperately needs to ride the tiger of unbridled economic growth, it will give aid and comfort to the genocidaires of Darfur, all the while smiling politely. A few raped and murdered Africans will matter not a whit to them.

Whilst all of this is going on, the nabobs of the Olympic 'Movement' will seek to persuade us that by awarding the games to this cruel despotism they will enable us to 'engage' with China and that this exercise, supposedly to be conducted by the sports journalists of the world, will bring the whole edifice crashing to the ground. Presumably then, it was the International Olympic Committee that won the Cold War and not, as we all so fondly believed, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Such self-delusion would be funny were it not so wicked.

As we look forward to the joys, nay the rapturous Onanistic bliss that is the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, let us also contemplate its reaction to the fact that the oppressed people of Tibet have spontaneously risen up against their cruel oppressors. Whilst calling upon China to desist from using force against peaceful protestors, it also called upon Tibetans to stop using violence.

Tibetans have nothing else in their armoury. They have tried all the usual means of democratic persuasion but the response of their oppressors has been to ratchet up the level of oppression at every turn. Violence is all they have left.

Once upon a time European leftists, of the sort who were ever ready to enter the lists on behalf of the murderous Viet Cong, Castro, The IRA, Zapatistas, the ANC of South Africa or whoever the totem of the left was at any given moment, would have designated these courageous resisters 'freedom fighters' and their organization a 'liberation movement'. But this time the oppressor is one of them, a nominally Socialist outfit. Thus there is a squirming reluctance to condemn and the resistance must, perforce, be tarred with the same brush as the thugs of the riot police. Therefore any comment against the authorities must be tempered with a balancing criticism of those who have deployed the only means available to them. Thus are the righteous smeared with the tar brush of the oppressor.

Meanwhile the Olympic Torch, in another ludicrous piece of faux pageantry, is to be paraded across London, held aloft by a series of 'celebrities'. They are naught but 'useful idiots', every last one of them, who thoughtlessly give aid and comfort to the elderly gentlemen of the Chinese leadership who give the orders to kill, imprison and torture those who would be free. They plainly have no shame at their actions which help legitimize despotism. Instead they will smile for the cameras and justify their conduct on the grounds that to do otherwise will redound on London's own holding of the games in 2012.

If that means the torture chambers keep operating, so be it. After all The London Olympic Games are far more important than the freedom of a load of wacko Buddhists. Aren't they?

Comments Off

Apr 01 2008

A Giant Mosque for Strasbourg

A giant mosque is being built for the city of Strasbourg. Joachim Véliocras writes at Islamisation that the Regional Council of Alsace, consisting mainly of UMP members, voted in favor of a 420,000 euro subsidy for the construction of the Grand Mosque of Strasbourg. The UMP is President Sarkozy’s party.

But it wasn’t enough: the general council of the department of Bas-Rhin, also controlled by UMP, granted a supplementary subsidy of 506,000 euros for the huge project. The other parties – Socialist and Green – unanimously voted for the grant. In the name of the Concordat, the UMP controlled municipal council (during the term in office of Fabienne Keller in 2007) granted 610,000 euros to help finance the construction.

The Concordat is a special agreement decreed by Bonaparte dating from 1801 that grants public status to religion, and that permits priests to be paid by the State. In 1801, Alsace was part of France. However, when in 1905 the law separating Church and State went into effect in France, Alsace was part of Germany. After WWI Alsace again became French but never renounced the Concordat.

The first stone of the mosque was laid on October 29, 2004 by UMP Mayor Fabienne Keller (who was defeated in the recent municipal elections by the socialist candidate Roland Ries). During the inauguration of the new “political center” of Islam in Strasbourg, she was assisted by the Archbishop of Strasbourg, Joseph Dore, who “was thrilled by the occasion”, the Grand Rabbi of Strasbourg, René Gutmann, and the president of the Urban Committee of Strasbourg, Robert Grossman of the UMP party.

Comments Off

Mar 30 2008

Racial Tension, and Sexual Exploitation

scepteredisle.jpg
According to the NSPCC up to 5,000 children and young adults may be working as prostitutes in Britain, and the number appears to be rising. They are also being trapped into a life of prostitution at a younger age than previous.

In some cases, the NSPCC states, peer pressure is to blame. Clearly, children are being increasingly sexualized through the media, and this, of course, feeds very rapidly into the way in which children see themselves and how they see the world. Girls, particularly, are encouraged to think of themselves as virtual adults, or, perhaps more especially, as virtual adult stars. A month ago, for example, an online ‘game’ called Miss Bimbo  was launched which, although aimed at children, gives players a naked virtual Bimbo character to be dressed, embellished with breast implants, and its virtual weight controlled by virtual diet pills – hardly a good example of womanhood.

However, according to the BBC’s investigative reporting program Panorama many British girls (some as young as 12) are “groomed” for prostitution by criminal gangs with networks that extend across the country. Such girls are typically not the out-of-control youths lacking parental guidance, such as we might assume. They are merely teenagers, easily manipulated and easily controlled by ruthless, older men. “Grooming” consists of an emotionally and mentally paralyzing mix of flattery and gifts from boys only slightly older than their victims, introductions to older men, drink, drugs, sexual abuse, and rape. According to Jane, who talked on Panorama about being forced into prostitution at the age of 13:

"The grooming starts where you meet them [slightly older boys in a group] and they're nice to you and take you to McDonald's and buy you cigarettes."

"I was flattered that older boys were interested in me, which at 13 is nice.”

"And then you start to meet the cousins and the brothers, and then you realize that you've been passed on because suddenly you're hanging around with older people."

"They [the older men] start to touch you and say sexual things to you."

"And then the abuse starts. I was pinned down by two men while a third man raped me.

"And there were other men watching."

The Daily Mail ran a couple of stories that drew on this particular episode of Panorama (‘Sex for Sale’) even before it had aired, though it concentrated largely on the racial composition of Britain’s various gangs, in contrast to the television program itself. The newspaper states, for example,   “these crimes frequently have a racial element: in many of the identifiable cases, the pimps come from the Asian or Afro-Caribbean communities”. The racial composition of Britain’s gangland is, accordingly, “largely Asian in northern England, Afro-Caribbean in the West Midlands and elsewhere White, Turkish and Kurdish.”  However, while the documentary focused on a specific few Asian criminals and their White, female victims, it only very briefly touched on the subject, and a description of the documentary on Panorama’s homepage makes no mention at all of the race of the pimps or their victims, though, not surprisingly.

Race and sexual abuse is a sensitive issue in multicultural Britain. The fear that racist groups will exploit the situation to enflame tensions, or that accusations of racism will emerge in response to any official enquiry, seem to run through the sad tale of child exploitation in Britain. A Channel 4 documentary made in 2004, claiming that Asian men in Bradford were grooming White girls for prostitution, was cancelled for fear of public anger. The Coalition for the Removal of Pimping (CROP) has, likewise, a lengthy statement against racism on its website noting that it will not cooperate with racist organizations, as:

“Racist and political exploitation of the issue confuses the issue and undermines, or even prevents, active responses by relevant responsible agencies.”

Both Conservative M.P. Philip Davies and Director of the Ramadhan Foundation Mohammed Shafiq have suggested that the police have so far failed to tackle the problem of Asian gangs pimping White girls for fear of being accused of racism. Shafiq, who appears in the Panorama show, has said:

"These are criminals they should be treated as criminals. They are not Asian criminals, they are not Muslim criminals, they are not White criminals. They are criminals and they should be treated as criminals."

"If there is a drug dealer grooming a White teenager into prostitution then I don't want the police service or local authority not to be open about it."

Although the police appear to have a good idea about the ethnicities of Britain’s gangs, according to the NSPCC little is known about the ethnic composition of its child prostitutes. Last year the press highlighted the plight of young women trafficked from Eastern Europe, though thousands are also brought into Britain every year from Asia and Africa, usually under the pretext that they will have a better life in the U.K. Yet they are uquickly used by their traffickers to obtain government benefits, and in many cases are made to work as prostitutes. Interestingly, the NSPCC does acknowledge that racism plays a part in the experiences of sexually exploited ethnic minority children, though it does not state exactly how, or whether the racism they experience comes primarily from pimps or those who pay to abuse them, etc.:

“We know very little about the experiences of Black and minority ethnic children and young people involved in prostitution, but available accounts points to racism as being important in understanding their experiences.”

As we are now becoming increasingly aware, different cultures conceive of sex, women, marriage, and homosexuality, etc., very differently. Notably, even within the Western world the age of consent, for example, can differ quite substantially. On the continent of Europe it can be as low as 13 or 14; in the U.K. the age is universally 16; and in the U.S. it can be 16, 17, or 18.

The authorities seem ill equipped to cope with such a complex problem as the child prostitution, crossing racial boundaries but yet evoking the issue of race as it does so. The mantra of British political establishment has long been that cultural “differences are to be celebrated”. Yet while it champions “multiculturalism” it understands not even one single culture, and, perhaps for this reason, treats the worst of every culture as if it must somehow be representative of the whole, and, as such, beyond criticism. It also clearly fails to understand young people.
With teenage pregnancies vastly increased in number in the last decade, the authorities – in an apparent attempt to rectify the problem – have encouraged teenagers to engage in oral sex (instead of copulation), and are now examining the idea of compulsory sex lessons for 5 year olds.  As if Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is playing out before our eyes, government minister Dawn Primarolo has even suggested that teenage girls should be sterilized.  That way they would be free to have sex with anyone they want, or don’t want.

The authorities are no less inept when it comes to children of specifically non-British backgrounds. If Mohammed Shafiq has suggested that the police go softly on Asian gangs pimping White girls for fear of being accused of racism, the same fear raises its ugly head at the mention of the forced marriages of teenage girls – often to much older men from abroad. But, other, cultural issues emerge as well.
Bradford police support worker Philip Balmforth, who has spoken out about the scale of forced marriage in Britain – winning even the praise of M.P.s – now finds his position helping vulnerable young girls under threat, as members of the Bradford Council claim he has damaged the city’s reputation.  This response is not, perhaps, entirely unsurprising, however. The notion of reputation is central to some Asian cultures that have a very large presence in Bradford. According to an NSPCC survey of 500 people of Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi origin, two thirds believed that reporting suspected child abuse would “have a negative affect on the 'honor'” of the victim’s family.

Again, in his report, The Poverty of Multicuturalism, for the Think Tank, Civitas, Patrick West observes that judges have regarded the ethnic culture of the murderer as a mitigating factor in some so-called “honor killings”, thus giving Asian-British girls, for example, less protection under the law. Likewise, Saira Khan in The Daily Mail has also denounced the National Health Service’s policy of performing “virginity repairs” on Muslim girls who fear that their families may harm or even kill them if they discover they have had sex out of wedlock:

“It's effectively condoning an increasingly fundamentalist Islamic culture that is patriarchal, regressive and increasingly demeaning to women.”

The government seems to have finally woken up to the scale and seriousness of child prostitution in Britain. The police will have new targets, and schools will receive educational videos tackling the issue. Yet, if children are to be protected across the board the government must also abandon issues for principles, seeing that the human rights of minors are upheld and that criminals are treated as criminals.

Comments Off

Mar 28 2008

Sixty Years On, France Says Thank You

France’s first President born after the Second World War has paid handsome tribute to and given fulsome thanks for the double sacrifice of the flower of Britain’s youth in two world wars. It is not without irony that such has been so conspicuously and gratingly lacking in the words of his predecessors.

Nor is it without irony that such graceful comments should come not from a Frenchman of long native lineage, but from the diminutive bantam cock of a son of a Hungarian-born father and Greek Mother of the Jewish faith who contrasts so strikingly with the lofty mien of his recent more haughty predecessors (excepting always Georges Pompidou who never managed to shake off the look of the onion-seller). Whilst remaining deeply suspicious of French motives in all things, Britain should not fail to appreciate his comments:

France hasn’t forgotten, she will never forget that when she was almost annihilated, Britain was at her side.
She will never forget the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish blood mixed with the French blood in the mud of the trenches.
She will never forget the welcome the British people gave General de Gaulle and Free France.
She will never forget the heroic resistance of the British people without which all would have been lost.
She will never forget the fine young people who came from all over the British Empire and laid down their lives on the Normandy beaches and in the surrounding bocages.

It is notable that Sarkozy also gave the lie to the myth upon which France has constructed a narrative for the last sixty-seven years, a myth which began with Charles de Gaulle's claim on 18th. June 1940:
La France a perdu une bataille, mais la France n'a pas perdu la guerre. [France has lost a battle, but has not lost the war]

This bold, but ludicrous, assertion was backed by the mantra of many Frenchmen who claimed : “On nous a trahi!” – “We were betrayed!” Upon such soft sands France has built its alibi for the failings of its politicians and generals for far too long, an alibi that none of its modern executive Presidents has had, until now, the courage to disavow.
 
Now Sarkozy spells it out for all to see: France was close to annihilation and it was Great Britain who remained constant in the cause of restoring her to her place from the first day to the last. The myth has stood obstinately in the way of truth for far too long and one must commend Sarkozy for spelling out the stark reality for once.
 
But what of the rest of his speech to the British Parliament? There are three things which struck me as worthy of note.
 
In his opening remarks he said:
…it is an exceptional honour to address members of both Houses of the British Parliament.
It is indeed here, within these walls, that modern political life was born. Without this Parliament, would parliamentary democracy have ever existed in the world? Hasn’t this parliamentary practice, begun in this place, become the best guarantee against tyranny?

I wonder if he realised quite what he was saying. If we contemplate two facts: (1) that 70-80% of the laws which now enter into force in the United Kingdom every year emanate not from the elected representatives of the British people but from an unelected and wholly unrepresentative coterie of foreign civil servants; and (2) that with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon Britain shall yield up almost all that remains of its sovereignty to that same group who will thus acquire almost unlimited power to impose the Brussels Diktat upon British laws, is it not then right to assert that the ‘best guarantee against tyranny’ of which he spoke has been recklessly and casually thrown away? And has not thus Parliamentary Democracy, so long in the evolution, been in a few short years ruthlessly stifled?
 
For we should be under no illusion but that what we understand by Parliamentary Democracy, which is indeed a formidable (though not impervious) bulwark against tyranny and which we have now effectively abandoned, has been replaced by a formidable Euro-theocracy. And from them tyranny we shall have, the tyranny of laws to which neither Her Majesty’s Government nor the British Parliament has assented as more and more ‘competences’ are given up to the thrall of Qualified Majority Voting.
 
Of Parliament and the other institutions which have hitherto been the very fabric of the British nation Sarkozy observed:

The history of this institution today influences most contemporary political regimes. This Parliament has become what it is through the fight for the protection of essential individual freedoms and the principle of the consent to taxation.
These two fundamental conquests, which this Parliament was the first in the world to achieve, are still today the cornerstones of all our democracies. It is here that parliamentarians have gradually developed what is a party, an electoral programme and finally a majority.
It is through these institutions that the United Kingdom’s greatness has emerged. And I am so honoured to address you precisely because the political heart of the United Kingdom is beating under this roof.
I profoundly believe in the strength of politics. I profoundly believe in the ability of politics to improve the fate of the peoples. This is the whole purpose of politics.
Institutions, however much you upgrade them, exist only to serve the people. The strength of the British people has always been that of a free people who take their own decisions and are ready for the greatest sacrifices to defend their freedom.

It is precisely because the British have always been a free people, able to take their own decisions, that they have become what they are. Now that very institution is, for all legal and practical purposes, subordinated to another sovereign power: how then are the British to defend the freedoms so hard won and at such price? How then are the British to preserve their way of life when others who are not of their kind shall have the whip hand over them? And how ironic that a foreign President should come to praise Britian at the very moment of its eclipse.
 
Nicolas Sarkozy has, in some places, been lauded as a skillful politician. If so, his praise of Gordon Brown for railroading the Treaty of Lisbon through without a referendum in these terms:
I am not the only one in Europe who appreciates what he has done. What he has done was necessary for Europe.
was surely a grave mistake, bearing as it does the clear and unambiguous implication that this has all been done not for the benefit of the British people but for the benefit of others. It leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Comments Off

Mar 27 2008

France: The Cost of Immigration

The French organization Contribuables Associés (Associated Taxpayers) has published a study on the real cost of immigration. The website Le Salon Beige has a link to the complete study, in pdf format. The study shows that for a 30-year period after the Second World War immigration was a benefit to the State. But when the immigration laws changed to allow family reunification, and political or economic asylum, employment as the primary motive was replaced by the notion of population substitution, i.e. the bringing in of massive numbers of immigrants to change the ethnic make-up of a country. The needs of the immigrant population have thus surpassed the revenue from payroll contributions and taxes. The key points of the study are as follows:

- France has 6,868,000 immigrants, or 11% of the population.
- Immigration reduces by two thirds the growth of the GNP.
- The cost of immigration in France is 71.76 billion euros.
- The revenue from immigration in France is 45.57 billion euros.
- The deficit from immigration shouldered by the taxpayers is 26.19 billion euros.
- When an immigrant does not return home at the expiration of his work contract, it is the State (the taxpayer) who bears the cost of welfare and social benefits.
- Non-European immigrants and their descendants receive 22% of all social benefits.
- The unit-price of requests for asylum is 15,000 euros.
- The majority of immigration expenses do not depend on the Ministry of Immigration headed by Brice Hortefeux.
- Expenses for security linked to immigration amount to 5.2 billion euros.
- The black market involves at least 500,000 immigrants and represents a loss to the State of 3.810 billion euros.
- 65 to 90% of prostitutes are foreign.
- The unemployment rate of immigrants is twice that of non-immigrants.
- Social benefits constitute 14% of the average revenue of immigrant households versus 5% for non-immigrant households.

Le Salon Beige comments:

It is obvious that this study will have no impact on the media. The system refuses to ask these questions, for fear of discovering a catastrophic reality. (...) It is the great artifice of the immigrationists: the refusal to know. We now know that immigration is but a tool in the hands of the lobbies. The poor immigrants are merely toys, the first victims of a machine gone wild. Massive immigration conceals a great design favored by those desiring to destroy French culture, a culture hated by the cosmopolitan elite of our country. Through the maintaining of cheap labor, the electoral landscape of France will change in favor of the Left.

Le Conservateur writes:

The large public institutions and the ultra-liberal think tanks DON’T WANT to know. Today the trap is closing in on us. Immigrants are now so numerous that it is electorally dangerous to ask even simple questions. The new religion of diversity – which is a modest term for the regression of our culture and our way of life in our own country – makes any serious analysis of these questions impossible. Instead we must endure repeatedly lies so foul that even intelligent children could sweep them away with their hand. For example, it seems that “immigration is necessary in order to pay for old-age pensions.” This is a ridiculous argument, almost insulting, but you will find it in all the pseudo-economic journals. In reality, the “immigrants”, having the same entitlements as we, pay into the system an amount that doesn’t even cover the deficit that they themselves help to create.

The authors of the study offer alternative solutions to reduce the costs of immigration:

- Incentives to help increase the native French population
- Incentives to national preference and EU preference in employment
- Toughening the conditions for entry of non-European immigrants
- Priority to the integration of foreign populations already on French soil, rather than to new influxes

Comments Off

Mar 27 2008

Spanish Socialism and the Art of Buying Elections

spanish-chronicles-soeren-k.jpg

More than 13 million Spanish wage-earners and pensioners will begin receiving 400 euro (about $600) income tax rebates in June. The money should arrive just in time to help them pay the credit card bills for the mini-holidays they traditionally take during Holy Week (which the Spanish secular elite now call “Spring Vacation”).

The cash handouts come just one month after Socialist Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was re-elected to another four-year term in office. Indeed, the tax rebates, which are retroactive to January 1 and will cost the government more than 5 billion euros, are part of an ambitious package of Socialist campaign promises that is truly mind-boggling in scale.

In fact, the sum total of Zapatero’s electoral commitments will cost his government an additional 22 billion euros during the next legislature, or a whopping 2.1 percent of Spain’s GDP.

According to a financial summary of Socialist campaign promises, commitments in the category of “Employment and Social Welfare” will cost 11.5 billion euros between 2009 and 2012. Add another 6.15 billion euros in the area of “Innovation, Knowledge and Sustainable Progress”. And then add another 3.5 billion euros in the post-modern-sounding category of “Liberty, Coexistence and Rights in a Globalized World”. And 950 million more euros to pay for other campaign promises not covered by these categories.

Indeed, Zapatero has promised something to everyone. For the 1.7 million Spaniards eligible to vote for the first time, for example, Zapatero promised rent subsidies for the under-30s and the construction of 150,000 low-cost homes. In a bid for the female vote, he proposed that working women should pay less tax than men. And for low wage earners, he promised to exempt them from paying income tax altogether.

Zapatero has also promised: to raise pensions and the minimum wage; to create 300,000 new child care slots; to increase autonomy for the region of Catalonia; to financially compensate companies that adapt their working hours to those of schools; to provide new fathers with one month of paternity leave; to plant 45 million new trees (at one for each Spaniard, the Socialists will have to plant 30,821.9 trees every single day for the next four years); and so on.

Zapatero has justified these “prudent” and “plainly credible” expenses with the Keynesian idea that encouraging consumption could put the wheels of the Spanish economy back in motion, now that the construction bubble has burst and economic growth is grinding to a halt. The Socialists say their campaign promises will increase GDP growth by 0.3 percent, largely by creating half a million new jobs. They also say the money will come from the government’s fiscal surplus of 2 percent of GDP.

In any case, Zapatero (as well as all of those Spanish voters who expect him to deliver on his promises) is assuming a high rate of economic growth from which his government can reap a perpetual “fiscal dividend” to fund new programs. But the European Commission, after analyzing Zapatero’s new spending plans, has just reduced its estimate for economic growth in Spain by 0.5 percent in 2008. And then, just days after the election victory, Spanish Finance Minister Pedro Solbes admitted that the government’s growth estimate of 3.1 percent in 2008 was not realistic. Indeed, some forecasters now expect economic growth in Spain to fall below 2 percent this year.

Zapatero says he is just a nice guy who wants to put more money in people’s pockets. But many Spaniards, including some Socialist allies in parliament, say there is more than altruism behind Zapatero’s largesse. Spain’s biggest trade union, Comisiones Obreras, says the tax rebate, for example, is “opportunistic” and “a one-off payment for voting Socialist”. The Convergència i Unió, a Catalan nationalist party, has denounced Zapatero’s “banana republic tactics” as “a blatant attempt to buy votes with public monies.” And the opposition conservative Popular Party has branded the tax rebate as “naked electioneering”.

What has been interpreted as vote buying was also turnout buying. Zapatero’s big concern was that Socialist voters, who are notoriously less disciplined than their conservative counterparts, would stay at home out of complacency. But by turning the Spanish Treasury into a giant political patronage machine, Zapatero was able to activate and reward passive supporters for showing up at the polls. Indeed, voter turnout on March 9 was at near-record levels, which was a major factor in Zapatero’s re-election victory.

But by agreeing to Zapatero’s clientelistic quid pro quo, Spanish voters have effectively sold their souls to an indomitable welfare state. Indeed, by pledging their loyalty to the state-worshipping Zapatero in exchange for material comfort, Spaniards have delivered themselves almost completely into the arms of an unlimited government that will intervene in every aspect of their lives… from cradle to grave, as goes the cliché.

Spanish leftwing elites love to pontificate about how the American political system has become corrupted by money. But those very same elites have turned Spanish democracy – now just 20 years old – into a vote-buying and patronage-dispensing system that effectively places the entire population on the state payroll.

And by re-electing Zapatero (who even many of his most loyal supporters admit was a mediocre candidate), Spanish voters have shown that they are unable or unwilling to break free from the system that enslaves them.

Spain is in many ways a microcosm to Europe as a whole, and thus the Spanish election offers some important lessons for European Conservatives more broadly. One of these is that Conservatives who campaign on the time-honored principles of self-reliance and limited government will have an increasingly difficult time winning elections in a political environment where voters expect the government to cater to their every need.

For Spain it may already be too late. But now would be a good time for European Conservatives to articulate a new vision for Europe… one that can win elections.

 
 
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group

Comments Off

Mar 26 2008

The Art of Political Lying

laughland-controversies.gif

Hillary Clinton has proved that she can outdo the historical record of her husband, Bill. Whereas President Clinton is mainly remembered for lying about his sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary Clinton will now be remembered for having lied about a trip she made to Bosnia in 1996. You can watch her account of that trip, and compare it to the news reports at the time, here.

Hillary Clinton’s lie is, in my view, worse than Bill’s about Monica. When Bill Clinton said he had “never had sexual relations with that woman”, he knew that he was telling an untruth. The sentence was strictly true because by “sexual relations” he meant “sexual intercourse,” but he used semantics with the intention to deceive his listeners into believing that there had been no sexual relations of any kind with her, which there had been.

Hillary’s lie is of a different order. Her description of landing at Tuzla airport in 1996 and having to run to the car for fear of sniper fire was pure fantasy. She said there was no welcoming ceremony on the tarmac, when in fact there was. She was met by the president of Bosnia, and a schoolgirl who read her a poem. She did not run to the cars but instead spent several moments on the tarmac, in no danger of sniper fire whatever. 1996 was a year after the end of the war in Bosnia and the country was at peace.

The lie tells us something important about American political culture. It shows, unfortunately, to what extent militarism has become the dominant political ethic in that country. No other democracy regularly apostrophises the head of its executive as “the commander in chief”, and the rather primitive and exaggerated admiration for the capacity to inflict violence which is encapsulated by this phrase has become a decisive factor in the ups and downs of every American presidential campaign. John McCain, the real “Manchurian candidate”, is campaigning heavily on the basis of his war record, and Hillary’s fantasies about her trip to Bosnia were presumably an attempt to counter this.

Unfortunately, however, it is not the only lie that has been told about the Balkans. During NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, all NATO leaders, including Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, told much worse lies in their attempt to bolster public support for the violence they were inflicting on Yugoslavia. Hillary’s infantile fantasy about Tuzla pales in comparison with this statement by the British Prime Minister in 1999 about what was happening in Kosovo: “Women raped. Children seeing their fathers dragged away to be shot. Thousands executed. Tens of thousands beaten. 100,000 men missing. 1.5 million people driven from their homes.”

If Hillary was awarded “four Pinocchios” for her ultimately harmless braggadocio about Tuzla, Blair should be awarded the Adolf Hitler prize for telling such a Big Lie that no one would ever believe that he would have the audacity to tell it, and that therefore people would believe it. This quote from Blair is just one of many dozens of similar dishonest claims. I cannot, of course, rule out that women were raped in Kosovo, but I do rule out that children saw their fathers dragged away to be shot, that thousands were executed, or that any of Blair’s other claims were true. As I have detailed in my own books and articles on the subject there was never any racial genocide in Kosovo or anything remotely approaching it. Indeed, the evidence for Blair’s claims proved so non-existent – as non-existent as the later weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – that the charge of genocide was never even included in the otherwise fantastical indictment brought against Slobodan Milosevic by the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in May 1999.

That lie, unfortunately, unlike Hillary’s, and unlike the equivalent lies about Iraq, has not yet been really “found out”. People may not feel as emotional about Kosovo today as they did in 1999 (it is a feature of our sentimental political culture that moral outrage is as transient as it is intense) but they still believe that the Serbs committed terrible atrocities against the Albanians. In many cases, this belief in based on such a shaky grasp of the facts that Britain’s “leading quality newspaper” was able to write “Kosovo” instead of “Bosnia” when reporting Hillary Clinton’s Tuzla tall tale.

Concomitantly, they believe that the Albanians have a right to a state, having been such poor victims in the recent past. Very few people know about the counter-evidence produced during the Milosevic trial, for instance about how heavily armed the Albanians were (whereas the propaganda presented them as defenceless civilians); about how there was no plan to drive out the civilian population; about the terrible atrocities committed by Albanians; or about how all the Serb and Yugoslav armed forces were under strict instructions to observe the rules of war. The lies told by NATO to justify its war of aggression have become accepted truths and it will be a very long time, if ever, before they are rumbled.

We will therefore live with the consequences of this lie for many decades to come. As a result of it, a large piece of Mafia turf has been elevated to the status of sovereign statehood; a huge US base has been built in Kosovo, and it is evidently there to stay; and a people which fought bravely against the Nazis has been comprehensively demonised. The historian Arnold J. Toynbee famously argued that history follows very long cycles, and he is right: decisions (often based on lies) can have consequences which last for centuries. The lies told to justify the Protestant reformation or the French revolution have proved astonishingly successful, and they persist; Lenin’s decision to federalise the Russian empire, on the basis that the new administrative units reflected the pre-existence of distinct nations within the Soviet Union, was based on a lie whose consequences have still not fully developed.

We must, though, be thankful for small mercies. It seems likely that Hillary’s lie will have one short-term consequence, about which I am personally happy – and that is that she will never now be elected president of the United States.

Comments Off

Mar 26 2008

Appeasing the Islamists: Geert Wilders’s Ordeal and the Lessons of the Past

Adolf Hitler realized the importance of having a good press. In Nazi Germany with its press censorship, it was easy for Hitler to have a good press. However, during the 1930s the Nazis also tried to control the media in the neighboring European countries that Hitler was planning to invade. The Nazis bullied the democratically elected governments in these countries to censor everything that resembled what today might be called “Naziphobia” – criticism of Nazism.
 
Interestingly, the bullied governments gave in to the Nazi intimidation rather than back the few courageous individuals who spoke out against totalitarianism. In the late 1930s, SS Gen. Karl Gebhardt (a medical doctor who was hanged after the war for conducting “experiments” on humans) frequently paid visits to his friend, King Leopold III of Belgium, to complain about “German unfriendly remarks” in the Belgian press. King Leopold asked Paul-Henri Spaak, Belgium’s leading politician at the time, to forbid “anti-German” references in the Belgian media and ban non-Belgian papers that were critical of Hitler and his regime.
 
Spaak, who after the war became one of the founding fathers of the European Union, urged his colleagues in the government “to consider the possible consequences of the press campaigns against Germany.” The ministers were also under pressure from Viscount Davignon, the Belgian ambassador to Berlin, who looked upon them as “cowards” because they did not “dare to impose censorship.” Belgium gave in to the Nazi demands and banned “anti-German and unpatriotic publications,” including foreign papers such as the British Daily Express.
 
Belgium’s submission to the Nazi demands, however, did not prevent Hitler from invading the country in May 1940. The only result of the Belgian authorities’ appeasement policies was that many ordinary Belgians, at the behest of their own government, had not been able to read articles critical of Hitler. After the war, guess who blamed the young men who had fallen for the Nazi propaganda and volunteered to fight on the Eastern Front? Spaak and his ilk.
 
Today, we are witnessing a similar phenomenon. Islamist extremists want a good press. They do not tolerate criticism. Even cartoons are deemed offensive. They warn those who criticize them “to consider the possible consequences.”
 
In 2004, Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Muslim apostate, and filmmaker Theo van Gogh together made the 10-minute movie “Submission” about the treatment of women in Islamic cultures. “Islam” is the Arabic word for “submission.” Following the release of “Submission,” Mr. van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim fanatic. Since that murder, European television channels, “considering the possible consequences,” have refused to broadcast his movie. Miss Hirsi Ali felt compelled to leave the Netherlands after her neighbors won a court case to evict her from her apartment, because, due to death threats from Islamists, her presence there endangered the lives of people living next to her.
 
Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who used to belong to the same party as Miss Hirsi Ali, but who, like her, was pestered out for his “Islamophobia,” argues that Islam is similar to Nazism. To prove his point Mr. Wilders has made a 10-minute movie, called “Fitna” (the Arabic word for “ordeal”). Releasing the movie has become Mr. Wilders’s ordeal.
 
Whether or not Mr. Wilders is right about Islam is a matter of opinion. The way in which he is treated by the political establishment, however, is eerily reminiscent of the way in which democratic governments such as Belgium’s gave in to Nazi bullying in the 1930s.
 
Most European countries have introduced legislation that bans the promulgation of “Islamophobic” views. Mr. Wilders has been taken to court by opponents who claim that making a movie which is critical of Islam is in itself an offence. Without waiting for the verdict, which is expected later this week, the Dutch private and public television networks have all expressed their refusal to air “Fitna.”
 
When Mr. Wilders tried to book the Nieuwspoort press center in The Hague (partly owned by the Dutch authorities and partly by the press itself) to show his movie to the media, he was told that he would have to pay 600,000 dollars for extra security measures.
 
The European Parliament, afraid that Mr. Wilders might use its premises (the aptly named Paul-Henry Spaak (!) building in Brussels) to show the movie to the press, decreed that it is forbidden to show the “movie or caricatures on Islam by Mr Wilders” in “any space in the European Parliament.” Network Solutions, the American internet service provider where Mr. Wilders hosted a Web site to show his movie, closed down the site.
 
Like the Dutch authorities they are all “considering the possible consequences” of offending extremist Muslims. If, however, the lessons of the past are anything to go by, the submission of the Western establishment to the demands of their enemies will not deter the latter from attacking the West.

 
 
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on March 26, 2008 .

Comments Off

Mar 25 2008

Censorship from the Cowards at Youtube

On 10 January we posted a link to a documentary about Islam. This was an academic documentary, no cartoons nor insults. This morning we received the following message from Sagunto, our Dutch friend who had posted the original video at Youtube:

Censorship-alert! This morning I received several messages from the YouTube "service-team" which stated that the video's featuring the docu: Islam, what the West needs to know (with my Dutch subtitles) were removed from my account, due to "inappropriate content" after they were being flagged by some users. You at BJ provided a link to the vid's (thnx for that), but alas, it will be out of order from this day on :-(

In Dutch:

"..Beste lid:
De onderstaande video is om zijn ongepaste aard verwijderd nadat deze door leden van de YouTube-community is gemarkeerd en door YouTube-personeel is beoordeeld.
# pt 1/12 - Islam, what the West needs to Know Dutch-subs HQ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P7Y_moX1V0 .."

I've sent them the following reply, but sofar they didn't respond:

Dear people @ Youtube,
Today I received several messages about the hugely popular documentary "Islam, what the West needs to know", which was apparently removed from my account due to inappropriate content (I have to translate here from the message in Dutch which stated: "ongepast materiaal").
The documentary is almost exclusively based on well known Islamic sources themselves, so you might understand that I'm rather curious as to the reasons why these vid's were removed and what exactly was considered offensive or inappropriate material. Do the people at YouTube consider the Koran/Hadith to be offensive? I think the 44.000 people who saw this documentary would be well served if they knew the reasons behind this decision. I'd like to hear from you.
Kind regards,
Sagunto


Truly, if every piece of information which is deemed “offensive” by Muslims is removed the lights will soon be turned off in Europe.

Comments Off

Mar 25 2008

Experimenting with Education

scepteredisle.jpg

The modern age is entropic by nature it seems, and we are bombarded daily by different ideas and conflicting news stories, indicative, perhaps, of national confusion in a period of change. Yet nowhere does this seem more apparent than in the British education system. Universities must adapt to an aging population by offering more part-time course and career training, according to a recent Universities U.K. report. That state schools must likewise adapt to an increasingly multicultural society, seems to be a more widely aired message.
 
With faith-schools coming under attack for unwittingly segregating the various ethnic and religious communities of Britain the National Union of Teachers (N.U.T.) has now suggested that priests, rabbis, and imams could be invited to teach children of their faith, in special faith classes. According to the last census (2001), we should note, 71.8 percent of the population describes itself as Christian, with the next largest group being those who claimed “no religion” at 15.1 percent. The combined non-Christian religious population (e.g., Muslim, Sikh, etc.) then made up 5.4 percent of the total population.
 
While schools already have some form of religious education, the government and education authority have been accused of whittling away the teaching of the Christian religion, and increasing time spent on other religions. Last year, schools in the county of Buckinghamshire, for example, were told to spend 40 percent of their time on Christianity and 20 percent on Islam and a further 20 percent on Hinduism. In some cases Christianity may not be taught at all, with the entire curriculum given over to Islam, Hinduism, etc. While it is undoubtedly useful for students to know something about other religions, Christianity is unique in the West, in that, it has informed its great art, literature, themes of musical compositions, philosophy, etc., and thus without a good knowledge of this particular religion Western culture and history are almost impossible to understand.
 
Yet British children have very little knowledge of their nation’s history. According to recent surveys most school children think that Churchill was an astronaut or an insurance salesman. Far from attempting to rectify this, Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers has suggested, in the last week, that key events in British history should not necessarily be taught:

Quite seriously, we have got to move beyond, ‘Should we or should we not teach Shakespeare? […] Is the world going to collapse if they don't know, ‘To Be, Or Not To Be?’

Bousted has complained that the curriculum involves too much “rote learning” and lacks hands-on life skills. Industry has also complained that graduates lack business skills or general knowledge. Education is largely “to the test”, and yet increasingly characterized by low expectations. Notably, last year Britain fell ten places in what is regarded as the world’s most important school league table, and The Times has recently described classrooms as “war zones”, with one out of every ten teachers attacked by a student, quite aside from the more usual violence between students.
 
With parents often disengaged from, or unwilling to discipline, their children, and with peer pressure extended into the home through online social networking sites such as Facebook, it seems that children need more than “life skills”, general knowledge, or industry savvy. Children and young people find themselves increasingly hemmed into an eternal present, devoid of meaning, and as such it is no surprise that they are becoming increasingly destructive, and in many cases self-destructive. Children need the guidance of the lessons of history and religion.
 
Yet, there are sound reasons at this point in our history, to argue for a separation of Church and state. The Church of England has attacked the idea of faith classes, saying that teaching children their faith is a duty of religious institutions, and certainly schools seem ill equipped for such a move. More worryingly, others, such as John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, see the possibility of schools facilitating the spread of “extreme views”.

Comments Off

Mar 22 2008

Shame on You, Switzerland

An article from AJM (Alain-Jean Mairet) reveals the collaboration of Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey with Iran. When I first saw the photo above I had trouble grasping who or what that was on the left. But it is indeed Mme Calmy-Rey, looking like a mummy with tissue paper on her head and concluding a deal with the president of Iran to purchase cheap Iranian gas.

The American Embassy in Bern has expressed “disappointment” over the deal and has told the Swiss authorities that this type of agreement sends a “false message”, at the very moment when Tehran “continues to defy the Security Council resolutions ordering the suspension of programs for the enrichment of uranium.” The Swiss Ambassador was summoned to Tel-Aviv and told that the “Hebrew State regards the visit of the Swiss minister to Tehran as an ‘inimical act towards Israel’.”

Click here for many more photos – highly recommended! And click here for the English-language article from Tehran Times about the visit of Calmy-Rey.

French readers might be interested in AJM’s June 2007 post on Calmy-Rey in which the Socialist Swiss politician exposes the extent of her Islamophilia.

Comments Off

Mar 21 2008

Why Does the West Not Give Tibet the Kosovo Treatment?

Western politicians are all calling for an end of violence and “restraint on both sides” after a bloody showdown in Tibet. On a practical level, however, nothing is done to pressure the Red China government to end its oppressive policies, not only in occupied and annexed Tibet but also towards other minority nations in China, dozens of which comprise over one million people. This is in stark contrast with the Western leaders’ behaviour in Kosovo.

While Tibet is a genuine nation, independent until China invaded it in 1959 and began to ethnically cleanse the province, no-one is considering helping Tibet to recover its independence. NATO is not going to send planes to bomb Peking to force it to end its atrocities in Tibet. On the contrary, George Bush, while sending arms to Kosovo, has announced that he is going to Peking for the Olympics in August.

The West’s hypocrisy and double standards are even worse when one considers that, unlike Tibet, Kosovo has never had a legitimate leadership in exile. And that the Tibetan government in exile is recognized not just by Tibetans but by the Western powers as well.

Serb atrocities in Kosovo were massively published and circulated by Western media and politicians who used it to whip up anti-Serbian frenzy, which led to NATO air strikes and the ousting of Serbia’s leaders. Both media and politicians are showing unbelievable subtlety and restraint in their comments on the atrocities in Tibet. There are no calls for international fact-finding missions, no calls to end ethnic cleansing, no demands to find a “roadmap” to Tibet’s independence or magnanimous offers to mediate. All is said to be China’s internal affairs. The Western leaders are rushing to distance themselves from calls to boycott the “genocidolympics.”

Clearly Red China is not the same as Serbia. It is not realistic to expect that NATO, though it bullies a small country like Serbia, would start an outright war with a nuclear Communist power over an uprising in Tibet. But Peking should not be allowed to get away with (mass) murder. There are countless ways for the international community and for individual countries to put pressure on the Chinese Communists and to show that “universal human rights” are indeed universal and hold in the Himalayas, too.

The Tibetans have suffered for decades under Communist repression. They have endured the Sinofication of their culture, the colonization of their homeland and they have seen – like the peoples of Eastern Europe during the Cold War – that there is little or no real support coming from the West. However, the more the West looks the other way, the more it will lose its credibility.

Comments Off

Mar 21 2008

Sarkozy’s End

No it’s not the political end of Nicolas Sarkozy. The local election results as discouraging as they are, they are neither the cause nor the origin of Sarkozy’s decline. If someone wanted to trace the present difficulties and future failures of Sarkozy one has to look back at his political campaign for the presidency.

In the TV debate before the second round for the presidency Sarkozy said in his opening statement that he wanted “to be a president of the republic who is committed first of all to results. I want results. No more talk, no more declarations of virtual rights but promises to the French of rights that will become a reality: Results.”

This is the basis and the starting point of Sarkozy’s end as a political reformer and a transformative force for a new France. The statement about “results” points to a misunderstanding about France’s source of discontent; France does not face a managerial problem but a philosophical one.

It seems that the French right has two kinds of politicians. The first one would be someone like Jacques Chirac. Slightly aware of the changes that are necessary to modernize the country and half-heartedly committed to make some reforms in the dark of the night. It’s the process where the government tries to pass a piece of legislation as quickly and with as little discussion and publicity. This model tragically failed, time and again, during Chirac’s presidency.

Then there is the second kind of French conservative politician, Nicolas Sarkozy. In this case the same kind of reforms is tried but this time in the full light of day and with some arguments being put forward. Although this second kind is an improvement over the first one, it does suffer in one fundamental way. The reasons and arguments put forward are of a very poor quality.  

The words usually one hears coming from the lips of the reformer politician are competitiveness, efficiency, purchasing power, and of course results. I don’t know many people moved by words like these; actually I don’t know any people like that. Have you ever being moved by a speech of an efficiency expert?

How exactly are competitiveness and efficiency to battle with words that do carry megatons of emotional weight and an intergenerational consciousness, like justice, solidarity and social cohesion?

If Sarkozy were to be successful he would have to create the grand narrative of a new France. He would have to make the French people see themselves and the world with new eyes. Ideas like that of justice, solidarity and social cohesion would have to be redefined or more accurately, regain their original meaning.

The truth of the matter is that the present state of affairs is not viable. It is as if France and most other European countries have legislated their way to decline and decadence. If there is any chance of hope – and at this point many are doubtful – the right in Europe must create a new compelling vision of a more prosperous and just society.

It’s not the work of a politician. Politicians are usually a lagging indicator. It would take a new and dynamic crop of thinkers, magazines and think tanks that would prepare the moral and intellectual ground for all the changes that are necessary.

The following excerpt from George Will’s column on the death of the conservative American figure Bill Buckley is very instructing:

Before there could be Ronald Reagan's presidency, there had to be Barry Goldwater’s candidacy. It made conservatism confident and placed the Republican Party in the hands of its adherents.
 
Before there could be Goldwater’s insurgency, there had to be National Review magazine. From the creative clutter of its Manhattan offices flowed the ideological electricity that powered the transformation of American conservatism from a mere sensibility into a fighting faith and a blueprint for governance.
 
Before there was National Review, there was Buckley, spoiling for a philosophic fight, to be followed, of course, by a flute of champagne with his adversaries. He was 29 when, in 1955, he launched National Review with the vow that it “stands athwart history, yelling Stop.” Actually, it helped Bill take history by the lapels, shake it to get its attention and then propel it in a new direction.

Well, before we have our euro-Reagans we are going to need our euro-Buckleys.

Comments Off

Mar 20 2008

The Spy of the Elysée / French Catholics Feel Insulted

Nicolas Sarkozy is about to monitor everything said about him on the Internet. One of the few innovations of his renovated government is the appointment of Nicolas Princen as chief spy in charge of surveillance of the Internet for President Sarkozy. Le Figaro reports that Princen is 24 years old, a graduate of Normal School and the HEC (Advanced School of Business). His mission: to be a sort of watchdog on the Internet, monitoring all the buzz about the president of the Republic, in order to alert the presidential advisers as quickly as possible and to prepare a response.

The French-speaking blogosphere is talking of little else. While some bloggers are concerned about the intrusion, others are taking it with humor. Blogger Luc Mandret writes:

Dear Nicolas Princen, I wish you great courage. And I would like to know if you really deserve your position. So I've decided to write this article. It would be super friendly of you to leave a little comment. [...] I would imagine you subscribe to the rss feed of Google's blogsearch. At least I hope so [...] Because I intend to continue writing things that are not very nice about your boss.

No sooner appointed, Nicolas Princen went to work... on his own image. As blogger Samuel Authueil notes: “Now he is known to all, it is in his interests to be irreproachable, because I feel that he will not be receiving many gifts. He will be besieged at the slightest mistake, and in the end, he could spend more time defending himself than conducting his original mission. I wish him much pleasure.”
 
Meanwhile Gaelle Mann has a long post on the changes being made by President Sarkozy following his “wake-up call” last Sunday when his UMP party suffered a major setback in the municipal elections. But in order to wake up, you have to first be asleep, and this was not Sarkozy’s case. He has the nature of a gambler who bets on winning elections and when he loses simply goes on betting. As his debt grows he may play the game more and more furiously, but he will not modify his behavior.
 
The ministers remain at their posts – at least Sarkozy is not punishing them for his own failings. Major ministerial changes are put off until 2009, after the French presidency of the EU is over (it begins in June 2008).
Nicolas Sarkozy has decided to persevere in his policy of reforms and to merely make a few marginal “adjustments”, mainly to appease the concerns of his party. [...] Using an Ipsos-Dell poll as a basis, a close associate of Sarkozy declared: “We took a beating, that is undeniable, but the vote reflects the impatience of the French people. It is fitting therefore that we accelerate the pace of reforms, especially regarding the modernization of the economy and pensions.”

  

Another innovation of the renovated government is the creation of a secretary of State for Family Matters. The job has been given to Nadine Morano, a close associate of the president known to favor euthanasia and gay marriage. French Catholics have been demanding a special minister for Family Matters, but it is certain they did not want Mme Morano. This is typical Sarkozy: he gives you what you ask for, his way.

The appointment of an advocate of euthanasia and gay marriage is a clear sign of the contempt in which Sarkozy holds traditional family life, and a kick in the teeth to his Christian constituents. Moreover Morano’s office is under the supervision of Minister of Labor Xavier Bertrand, who has admitted to being a Mason, thus adding an even greater dimension of anti-Christian potential to her appointment.

Le Conservateur’s succinct reaction says it very well:

It is an insult. Out of intellectual honesty it would have been in good taste to appoint her secretary of State on “parodies of the family” or on its “disintegration.”

Bernard Antony also responds to this new evidence of Sarkozy's left-wing preferences:

The appointment of Nadine Morano unfortunately illustrates once again how much the conservative rhetoric of Nicolas Sarkozy is intended to dissimulate the concrete left-wing drift of his actions.

.

Comments Off

Mar 20 2008

The Islamification of France

The French website 5 Years Later has posted maps that illustrate the advance of Islam in France. I’ve taken the latest one from 2008 showing through shades of green the areas of implantation of the religion of peace and tolerance. The numbers on the map are those of the departments and have nothing to do with numbers of Muslims. The chart at the bottom runs from fewer than 5 to more than 30 mosques, prayer rooms or meeting houses. So we see that, in the southwest, department 33 has more than 30 while department 40 has fewer than 5.

For a complete list of all places of Islamic worship in France, click the link above. Even if you don’t know French you will find the listing impressive.

You will note also the inset in the upper left showing Paris (75) and its three surrounding suburbs. The name for that whole region is Ile-de-France, but someone has chosen to emend it to Êl-de-France.

texte alternatif

Comments Off

Mar 19 2008

Gold: The Money of Freedom and Honesty

laughland-controversies.gif
The collapse of two major banks in Britain and America (Bear Stearns and Northern Rock) should make us pause to reflect on the fundamentals of the world financial system.
 
When currencies around the world were nationalised at the outbreak of the First World War, the reason was obvious. In order to fight the war, states needed to be able to print their own bank notes without actually having the money to do so. The relevant law in France, passed in August 1914, stated baldly “The Bank of France will no longer reimburse its banks notes in cash.”

The cash in question was gold, and bank notes were but titles to a certain amount of gold coin. The supply of money was dictated by the supply of gold. Although the state played a major role in the currency system – all countries had “central banks”, and use of the national currency was obligatory – its principal function was to uphold the promise to pay the bearer of its bank notes a specific sum on demand. Providing that that promise could be kept, the currency was sound.

After the First World War, attempts were made to reinstate the pre-war system because it was considered to be the indispensable bedrock of the financial system and world trade. How could nations trade freely with one another if their currencies fluctuated in value all the time? However, the “gold exchange standard” created at Genoa in 1922 contained a fatal flaw which soon led to the system’s collapse in the fateful year of 1933. That fatal flaw was that two currencies, the British pound sterling and the US dollar, were taken as having equivalent value as gold. Other currencies could be exchanged for them, and they could be used as collateral for their issue.

This was a fatal flaw because it gave a special privilege to these two currencies. That privilege meant they were always in demand, however much of them was in circulation. The great French economist, Jacques Rueff, identified this flaw as one which permitted “a deficit without tears”. The United States and Britain could basically print as many paper dollars or pounds as they liked, safe in the knowledge that they would be soaked up by other central banks to put in their reserves. They could use this paper to buy goods from abroad, exporting capital in return, without any fear that the increase in the money supply would lead to inflation at home.

As the Second World War was coming to an end, and plans were being laid for the post-war financial system, the old memory of fixed exchange rates persisted (although this was only a consequence of the gold standard, not its principal virtue). However, at Bretton Woods in 1944, the same mistake was made as at Geneva, only this time the United States dollar alone achieved supremacy as a currency with a “reserve” status. When its own link to gold was cut in 1971 – Richard Nixon needed to print dollars to fund the war in Vietnam – the world currency system was set adrift on the system we now live with, one in which currencies fluctuate in value against each other all the time.

What we now remember as the “oil crisis” of 1973 was, in fact, little more than a rational response by oil producing nations to the de facto devaluation of the dollar. Oil rose in price because it was denominated in a debased currency. The oil producers said they would price oil against gold instead – i.e. against real, as opposed to paper, money. This never happened, in fact, and black gold continues to be priced in dollars. But this is one of the main reasons why the United States continues to enjoy the “deficit without tears”, i.e. a seemingly limitless trade deficit, paid for by flooding the world with dollars which other countries use either in their central bank reserves or to buy oil.

In the last twenty years or so, this policy has been applied with a vengeance. The United States Federal Reserve, a private organisation with the privilege of printing dollars but owned by private banks, has flooded the American (and world) financial system with cheap credit. This has been the principal cause of the tremendous rise in the price (inflation) of stocks and shares. Other commodities which have risen greatly in price include property and, of course, oil. The financial system as a whole may be helped by this rise in credit, because the banks make money on it by lending the money on at a higher rate, but the economy and society as a whole suffer.

This is because artificially easy credit generates income for banks in the short term by mortgaging the long term instead. A rise in the money supply now makes profits for the banks but pushes up prices for everyone else. Specifically, a rise in property prices (a fixed and real asset which inevitably rises as the value of paper currency is debased) generates huge problems for the whole economy, and especially for family life. Families cannot afford to have more children; and the resulting collapse in the birth rate stores up trouble in the future for important things like pensions and health care. It also drives immigration, which in turn causes its own problems, specifically the abuse of social costs, which drives up taxes, taking yet more money out of the pockets of ordinary working citizens.

To put it in a nutshell, a system of paper currency, easy credit and high taxes destroys the natural order of society. It breaks the social contract and pays for the present at the expense of the future. The financial system, however, prospers. Banks make money because the cheaper credit is, the more money they can lend. In their search for ever greater income, banks have flooded the Western economy with credit. The current “sub-prime” mortgage crisis in the US and Britain is only the tip of the iceberg. It is now very easy to take out vast loans for property in both countries, many multiples of one’s annual salary, on the basis of no proof whatsoever: I, for instance, have a loan which is many times my own annual income and I obtained it without having any regular salary and without providing any proof of my financial position whatever. It was all done by word. My wife, meanwhile, was recently offered a credit card by our local department store, which duly arrived in the post, giving us £6,000 in instant credit even though she has no income whatever, and even though a card was issued in my name without me even having set foot in the shop.

Once people have difficulty repaying such dodgy loans, then of course the whole system risk collapse. The income from these loans is itself used as collateral for other increasingly baroque financial operations but if the basis for them dries up then the knock-on effect can be very serious, since it is a feature of options and other financial instruments that very large sums can be leveraged for very little money. All this, I repeat, is encouraged by the bank which directs operations at the centre, the Federal Reserve, which never pays its own debts and encourages a climate of easy credit.

The real collapse of the world financial system would come if countries and oil producers started to abandon the US dollar, as some are already doing. Because the US prints limitless amounts of green paper, demand for it has to be kept going somehow. Oil is a major source of demand – and one of the reasons for Saddam Hussein’s downfall was that he decided to sell his oil for euros in 2000. The link between paper currency and militarism is integral. If the dollar is abandoned, then the United States will no longer be able to pay for its limitless imports. Indeed, if oil rises significantly in price, then the very fabric of American life will be threatened since all American cities are constructed in such a way that it is not possible to live in them without a motor car.

The argument is also advanced that state control of the financial system is necessary to prevent financial collapse. This argument is looking a little threadbare as banks collapse in London and New York – the collapse of Northern Rock has caused the British government to pump in nearly twice as much money as it spends every year on the armed forces – and as whole currencies collapsed, in Russia and the Far East, in 1998.

Because the vested interests are so great, the US Central Bank and the other countries of the world will do all they can to keep this racket going for as long as possible. They may succeed for a while. But the world financial system is parasitic on society, and it impoverishes it in the end. It is contrary to the natural order and, sooner or later, it is the natural order which will return.

Comments Off

Mar 19 2008

The Spy of the Elysée

Nicolas Sarkozy is about to monitor everything said abou