A DASTARDLY DEED WHEREIN A SUPER SECRET, SCARY, PLOT PLANNED IN BRUSSELS . PART TWO
On a related note the EU never lets a good crisis go to waste…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7252288/Greece-loses-EU-voting-power-in-blow-to-sovereignty.html
another excellent take on it by Mrs. Thatcher’s right hand man Lord Tebbit…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100026221/our-masters-in-brussels-will-use-the-greek-crisis-to-try-to-impose-a-single-government-across-europe/We are in the midst of a crisis which will shape the future outcome of Europe. The Federalists are unlikely to give up without a fight.
The laughable part is that the Flemish can’t stand the Walloons and vice versa. They were without a governemnt for several months not long ago. The Flemish tend to have the Germanic/Nordic attitude to work. Where the Walloons are much more akin to the French. They like big government and welfare. It will get messy if the contagion in Greece spreads to Spain and Portugal.
I am less then a novice on that country and I hope Turtler is out there reading this and will offer his take on things.
Your wish is my command.
Perhaps, like many, you think Herman Van Rompuy, who took office as the first EU President on Friday, is a harmless figure of fun. Well, you’re wrong.
Cautiously agreed, but in many cases his danger COMES because in many cases, he actually IS a harmless figure of fun. Namely when it counts (the Islamists, Russia, etc).
Van Rompuy, a former prime minister of Belgium, represents the ‘Belgianisation’ of Europe - a process which began 180 years ago and for which Britain has only itself to blame.
Oh sure, now THIS I gotta hear....
There is ominous symbolism in a Belgian ruling the EU.
Oh REAH-Leah? do tell.
During the Second World War, Churchill called the Belgians ‘the most contemptible of all - a nation which vainly hoped to stay out of this war, no matter what they owed to those who had saved them in the last war’.
If Churchill ever SAID that, or said that about anybody save the pre-1940 government, all- and I mean absolutely ALL- it proves is how ludicrously WRONG Churchill could be when he was angry.
Firstly, the “most contemptible nation” probably would be a tossup between Germany, the USSR, Japan, or- if we are talking pathetically contemptible- either any pick of Germany’s Eastern/Central European allies or KMT China.
Secondly, the Belgian gov’t can be EASILY faulted for their dismal preparations for 1940, but I cannot POSSIBLY go so far as to condemn them for staying out of the war. Remember: the last time the Germans marched in, a few million of their number were injured, disposed, “disappeared”, or worse. While in hindsight it should be apparent that Hitler always desired control of the Channel Ports and Belgium’s uranium stockpile, the people who made those decisions were not living in hindsight. And while the 1940 gov’t was clearly weak and dishonorable, the Belgians themselves were not, as ANYBODY who has EVER studied their campaigns in Africa (mobilizing and modernizing what was the equivalent of a POLICE FORCE- Force Publique-, painstakingly organizing supplies, charting out a course across some of the most hellish and unpredictable territory imaginable, and then marching out to confront German forces bolstered by Ethiopian and Eritrean conscripts that had total air superiority over them, vastly superior logistics and supplies, and a THREE/FOUR TO ONE NUMERICAL ADVANTAGE. And WINNING. And THAT was just in the Horn of Africa. When in Libya, it was even NASTIER. And don’t get me started on their return to Europe in 1944 or the role of the Belgian underground).
Yet the Belgian political model has since then stealthily conquered Britain, turning Brussels, not London, into the centre of power from which decisions are imposed on the British people.
True, but since the EU Government has long ago freed itself from the shackles of petty things like the wishes of their national constituents, that is hardly only the fault of the Belgians.
Belgium was created by British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston in 1830-31. It is home to six million Flemings, three million Walloons and one million people in bilingual Brussels.
True. And pray tell me what was BRITAIN and FRANCE home to when THEY were formed? And don’t EVER get me started on Germany, Russia, or (god forbid) the Austrian Empire.
The country came about after French-speaking Walloons broke away from the Netherlands and tried to join France.
BBZZZTTTT! Wrong answer. While the Wallons were sizably more supportive of the Revolution than the Flemings were, the revolution was hardly entirely based on ethnic lines, because Amsterdam had become a royal pain in the rear to pretty much everyone in the region. And the Walloons had LUDICROUSLY little desire to join France. They would have if left with LITERALLY no other choice but that or union back with the Dutch, but it was very, VERY far down on their list.
Palmerston recognised the rebels on condition that they established a new state and remained neutral.
Which, given that was what most of them wanted to do ANYWAY, was hardly a burden for them.
Even Belgium’s first king, Leopold I, said: ‘Belgium has no nationality and it can never have one. Basically, Belgium has no political reason to exist.’
A. Source?
B. And preventing Western Europe from descending into a bloodbath WASN’T a political reason?
C. People said similar things about Italy, France, Britain, and Germany in THEIR early years.
By the late 19th Century the Belgian political elite had developed an ideology with a striking similarity to modern Europeanism. In 1904, the ideologist Leon Hennebicq wrote: ‘Have we not been called the laboratory of Europe? Indeed, we are a nation under construction… the solution is economic expansion, which can make us stronger by uniting us.’
So.... I am supposed to believe that (amongst others) Joseph Chamberlain, William Gladstone, and even Otto “I like conquering small countries, persecuting ethnic minorities, and crushing German Democracy in my spare time” VON BISMARCK were “Europeanists?”
His words foreshadowed the Europeanism of the Fifties, which aimed for political unification through economic integration.
In part motivated by little things like the time-honored recognition that foreign trade helps speed recovery and little itsy bitsy things like THE LARGEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS sitting just across the Demarcation line.
But before this could be put into practice Germany invaded Belgium in 1914, forcing Britain to intervene in a Franco-German tussle to uphold Belgium’s neutrality.
I could spend a few thousand pages writing a master’s thesis about how many things are wrong with that sentence, but I will settle for saying that the Anglo-French alliance against Germany was cemented well over a DECADE BEFORE the invasion of Belgium, what with ltitle things like the German naval buildup, German saber rattling pretty much everywhere in the world, the threat of Turkish dominance in the Suez and a Turco-German alliance, and countless other things I do not have the energy to mention. Oh yes, and the little fact that had the British NOT intervened, it was UNBELIVABLY likely they would have had to face a Europe dominated by a vast, authoritarian, and expansionist German Empire with near-total land superiority and growing naval power in control of the holy grail of British strategic thought- the Channel Ports_ PROBABLY had something to do with that as well.
As neither the Flemings nor Walloons loved Belgium, they left Britain to do the fighting.
Oh bloody VUNDERBAR! No wonder Europe is in such bad straits: THIS fool can be classified as a “historian” without getting laughed out of the arena! The idiot apparently hasn’t studied the history of HIS OWN BLOODY NATION!
I could go on and on here, but I got a call addressed to Monsieur Belien from Albert the Great and the 142,000+ of Belgium’s war dead. They want to speak with him, and they mentioned something about a crowbar, an iron tack, magma, and a bulldog named Fluffles, but I couldn’t quite make it out. And that is BEFORE they hand him over to the WWII dead.
The war left Britain with 700,000 military deaths.
Nope, in all likelyhood (even if we only count the UK proper), it was far higher.
After the war, the Belgian establishment put Hennebicq’s doctrine into practice. Since 1919, economic and social policies have not been decided in parliament, but between the government and so-called ‘social partners’, including the trade unions and the Federation of Belgian Employers.
True to an extent, but hardly universal. And such arrangements are not limited to Belgium or to those influenced by those “Belgian” ideals after 1919.
Soon, the Belgians realised they could apply their ideas to Europe.
Hardly. They were a leetle bit busy cleaning up things like four years of some of the harshest occupation the world had yet seen and trying to get back on its feet.
In the Thirties, Henri De Man, leader of the Belgian Socialist Party, said his country’s ‘corporatist welfare state’ model should be turned into a European or even a global system.
It is interesting that Monsieur Belien has chosen Monsieur De Man- a radical who was under government surveillance for 20 years PRIOR to WWII and who was a traitor and collaborator during WWII who was condemned to death in absentia- as a representation of mainstream Belgian political thought. Some would call this “stacking the deck,” or “intellectual dishonesty.” Or simply “Misrepresenting the hell out of a case.”
When Hitler overran Europe in 1940, Queen Elisabeth, the widow of Belgium’s King Albert, described it as a ‘work of necessary destruction’.
A. Proof?
B. This would be Queen Elisabeth the militant pacifist? The Queen Elisabeth who quarreled to ludicrous extents with her husband over Belgian policy in Europe prior to his death? The Queen Elisabeth who visited Communist regimes in the USSR, Poland, and China and who let herself be taken in by the Moscow propaganda? THAT Queen Elisabeth?
Meanwhile, De Man saw the Second World War as a unique opportunity to establish a united Europe, asking his followers not to oppose the German victory because: ‘The Socialist Order will thereby be established, as the common good, in the name of a national solidarity that will soon be continental, if not worldwide. What was needed, he added, ‘was as much federalism and as little separatism as possible’.
Ah, NOW he mentions De Man’s ties to Germany. However, may I point out that this was very, VERY common with regards to Socialist/Communist movements in Western Europe prior to Barbarossa as per Stalin’s orders (remember The Soviet Story?). So this was HARDLY unique to Belgium, and indeed led to his blacklisting and eventually to his death sentence by the LEGITIMATE Belgian government?
De Man is now forgotten by history. His legacy, however, is very much alive thanks to his deputy, Paul-Henri Spaak, who settled in Britain during the summer of 1940. He would go on to produce the Spaak Report which laid the foundation of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. It recommended the creation of a European Common Market, which would later become the European Union, as a step towards political unification and ‘an ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’. From the beginning, what these peoples might think was deemed unimportant.
Firstly, Spaak broke with De Man to the extent that he was forbidden from returning to occupied Belgium (though that he even tried is not pleasant).
Secondly, the Treaty of Rome was a long way coming, and was even supported by such notables as Churchill and Truman, in large part because of the formation of NATO and the existence of said Red blob on the Eastern half of the Continent.
Thirdly, the Spaak report was vastly overshadowed by requests from NATO for some form of organization after the epic Ike-induced blunders of 1956.
Today’s EU is a shotgun marriage for the peoples of Europe. When the Danes voted against the Maastricht Treaty, and the Irish against Nice and Lisbon, they had to vote again. When the French and Dutch rejected the EU Constitution, their verdict was discarded.
Britain’s Government simply denied its people a say on the Lisbon Treaty, so Westminster is now legally obliged to ‘contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union’ - i.e. to further the interests of the EU, rather than those of its own people.
Now I FINALLY see something I can entirely agree on.
Make no mistake, the EU is an empire with global ambitions.
Ja? And so is ASEAN. It isn’t nice to see, but it is hardly an impending threat.
In his acceptance speech, President Van Rompuy extolled ‘global governance’.
Ja? Well, let’s first see them deal with Moscow’s attempts to gobble Eastern Europe back up before making any assumptions about their staying power.
Legions of bureaucrats will rule the British from Brussels, the Belgian capital.
True, but to be fair, a good half of them aren’t even Belgian (and many of them are British), so AGAIN, the Belgians can hardly be blamed for that.
Being proud of your Britishness will be criminalised, just as Brussels has always punished Flemings who put Flanders first.
The last part is not so, as anyone who has EVER seen how Brussels reacts to Walloons who are judged to be unnecessarily aggravating the Flemings in Flanders (which happens fairly often).
That, and the fact that “Flemings who put Flanders first” have a long and nasty history (like “Irishmen who put Ireland first") of making alliances with tyrannical groups (see radical Flemish nationalists collaborating with Germany both in WWI and WWII even as said Germans cut their fellow “Dutch” and “Flemings” down by the tens of thousands, and said radical Flemish nationalists trying to obtain ties with the Soviets, Arab Nationalists, and Islamists), and generally tending towards racism and even apartheid (has ANYONE seen the party platform of Vlaams Belang here?), so perhaps it isn’t THAT they are putting Flanders first, it is HOW they are doing it.
Last November, Van Rompuy, although a Fleming himself, confessed in an interview: ‘I am a European because the European idea is an antidote for Flemish nationalism, an antivenin [an antitoxin against a snake’s venom] against the Flemish Movement.’
True, but he also pointedly rejected Walloon and even BELGIAN nationalism and even identity, so one can hardly call him a typical Belgian.
Two weeks later, he became the EU President. Van Rompuy is no harmless creature.
Perhaps, but how does he compare to the Islamists, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Latin American Bolsheviks that have been rallying around Chavez and Castro?
He symbolises the conquest of Britain by Belgium, the monster created by Palmerston.
BULL! It symbolizes, more than anything, how Europe has abandoned its traditional freedoms and identity to the tempting lure of incompetent transnationalism which has led them to disrespect the sacrifices and contributions of millions of their number and their Allies- INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF BELGIANS OF ALL STRIPES- rather than anything else. But Monsieur Edayoh isn’t INTERESTED in recognizing those sacrifices and fighting for what they gave their time, their wealth, and their lives. No, his motto is to “put Flanders First"- before Liberty, before Democracy, before Republicanism, before the Rule of the People, before Honor, before even TRUE INDEPENDENCE. He is no historian. He is a FRAUD, and nowhere is that more evident then when he chose to defile the graves of the martyrs who gave HIS ignorant arse the ability to write such drivel and force it upon the rest of us.
• Dr Paul Belien is the Flemish author of A Throne In Brussels: Britain, The Saxe-Coburgs And The Belgianisation Of Europe, published by Imprint Academic, Exeter.
And this is where I talk about Monsieur Belien himself. As you might have guessed, he is a Flemish nationalist, and a very idiotic and irrational one at that. He is a member of Vlaams Belang (the exceedingly racist and generally militant group that has gotten so much coverage in recent years, and has honorably crowned a group of German collaborators and even a few war criminals as “honorary members” (how convenient he forgot to mention that)). To his “credit”, he is a member of the somewhat saner branch of VB (for instance, he has rejected plans to openly deport all Walloons and religious minorities out of Flanders, like its leader itself has endorsed), but the fact that he remains with the party and furthermore has not not raised any protest to such “honorary members” is- to say the least- highly troubling.
And yes, I had the EXTREME displeasure of reading ATIB. I must say I may be somewhat biased against said book because I read it under unfortunate circumstances (it was open, for one) and has served be both an excellent coaster and source of ready fire fuel, I believe I can still state that it could be politely be called a bunch of tripe (for one, it utterly ignores a good 90%+ of the causes of the Belgian Revolution, and its reasoning behind why the Germans invaded Belgium can only be classified as making one question what shade of purplish-green the ground is in his universe), and I would recommend it only for intellectual integrity’s sake (so one can rip it honestly) and for said drinkholder/firewood duties.
In short, this article is tripe from an OBSCENELY unreliable source that has EVERY reason to blame his fellow Belgians (and yes, I included that part specifically so it would rile him up in the oft chance he reads this)- particularly Walloon-dominated Brussels- for problems even when they are not responsible, and no reason to give a remotely accurate account of the matter it claims to describe (besides a little thing called honesty, which Monsieur Belien clearly does not posses). Short story: look elsewhere.
Because the conspiracy both of you speak of is not a cruel and sinister conspiracy by the evil Belgians (or vile Walloons) to enslave Free Europe, but a suicide pact by transnationalist idiots who will prefer to let said Free Europe burn rather than accept the unworkability of their ideas and take the necessary step to save European Freedom and independence.
Posted by Turtler
02/17/2010 at 01:11 AM
Gee,I always thought it was the Rothchilds and the Illuminati that had that plan. Silly me.
And dont write that how can I believe that nonesense either Because I dont, but Snark is where I find it.
Now where is my Freemason rules for radicals, I know I set it down here somwhere,,,,,
02/17/2010 at 12:51 AM
