“A threat to the UK”

In yet another strike against democracy, nearly four in ten British voters demonstrate that they are nothing but media lapdogs by agreeing that the only British party leader who ISN’T an enemy of the British people is “a threat to the UK“.

Ahead of the BBC debate tomorrow night, pollsters ComRes asked voters to consider several statements and say whether they applied more to Mr Farage or Mr Clegg. The results reveal weaknesses in both camps

In the poll, 38 per cent of people said Mr Farage ’is a danger to Britain’, compared to just 23 per cent who said the same of Mr Clegg. Despite UKIP drawing much of its support from older voters, 44 per cent of people aged 55-64 said Mr Farage posed a threat to the UK. Half of people working in the public sector, and 44 per cent of people in Scotland and the South West also agreed Mr Farage was a danger to the country.

Mr. Farage is a threat to the imperial neofascist European Union. And that is why its lackeys are trying to convince the British that he is a threat to the UK. These people are simply addicted to the Big Lie.

The only way in which UKIP’s Farage can be considered a threat to the UK is if its people are afraid of their own sovereignty.


The new evil empire

The European public has finally begun to figure out that the Eurofascists of the EU are cut from the same cloth as Napoleon and Hitler:

Britons see Russia in a more positive light than the European Union,
despite recent tensions with Moscow over Ukraine, according to a poll
published on Saturday. The league table of 27 “liked”
countries and institutions put the European Parliament — for which
elections are being held in May — sixth from bottom, and the EU fourth
from bottom. Only Saudi Arabia,
Iran and North Korea ranked below the European parliament when those
polled were asked how positive or negative they felt towards them.
Israel was fifth from bottom and Russia was seventh from bottom. Canada was top.

It shouldn’t be surprising that the British fear the EU more than the Russians. The EU is an invading and occupying force. The Russians are doing little more than securing their national interests in responds to EU and US provocations, and in doing so, proving that national interests supersede artificially-drawn political boundaries.


Britain’s big mistake

 It’s hard to argue that the Maastricht Treaty wasn’t a blunder of historic proportions. The only question is whether England will have to fight its way out of  the Eurofascist empire:

What is Sir Peter, married to his second wife, Gabrielle Mahieu, for 40 years,
most proud of? ”My opposition to the Maastricht Treaty. Because everything
that has gone wrong in Britain dates from us joining the European Union. One
of the reasons the House of Commons has lost its prestige is because people
feel we are no longer in charge of a country. So much of the legislation
that affects them is imposed by Brussels.’’ He is in favour of leaving the
European Union. ”If we had a referendum and the country votes to stay in
then we’re finished as a country because we will just be gobbled up into the
German Empire.’’

Using banks instead of tanks is arguably more civilized, but the end result is the same: conquest.


The return of La Serenissima

I, for one, welcome the return of our old Venetian overlords and the Most Serene Republic:

TREVISO – Il referendum on
line per l’indipendenza del Veneto dall’Italia ha conteggiato 2 milioni
360mila 235 voti, pari al 73% del corpo elettorale regionale. I sì sono
stati 2 milioni 102mila 969, pari all’89%, i no 257.276 (10,9%). Sono i
numeri della consultazione comunicati  in piazza dei Signori a Treviso
dai promotori del referendum, il movimento venetista ‘Plebiscito.eu’.

E’
stata una consultazione virtuale in tutti in sensi: perchè fatta
soprattutto attraverso la rete, oltre che con schede raccolte nei
gazebo, e ‘voti’ telefonici, e perchè, Costituzione alla mano, non ha
alcun valore formale, men che meno istituzionale.

The vote has no legal force, but the fact that 2.4 million votes were cast in an electorate of 3.7 million indicates that there is genuinely strong support for Venetian independence. And so the Risorgimento, the bastard child of Garibaldi’s globalism and the ambitions of the Piedmontese royal house, begins to unravel at last.


The man who should have been president

Ron Paul points out that Vladimir Putin is in the legal right and it is the USA and EU who have violated the relevant agreements:

The West will claim “everything Putin does is illegal,” but while Ron Paul notes “he’s no angel,” the former congressman adds Putin “has some law on his side.” America has a right of secession and Crimea should have it too – “it’s such a facade,” Paul explains, noting that “contracts, and agreements, and treaties” linked to the Sevastopol base provide Putin with a legal basis to militarily occupy Crimea, “Russia could accuse America of occupying Cuba because it, too, holds a lease on the land around the Guantanamo Bay prison.”

Paul goes on to note the hypocrisy of the West and alleges US and European participation in the overthrow of Yanukovich….

This is a showdown that USSA and the EUSSR intentionally sought. They are the aggressors, not Russia, and no amount of ex post facto cheerleading from the mainstream media can conceal that.

And it is particularly rich to hear the Eurofascists complaining about the Crimean referendum on Sunday. The unelected EU Commission has not only denied most of the people of Europe referendums on independence, but forced the people of Ireland to repeatedly vote until they produced the result that the Eurofascists wanted. Since they actively oppose the right of the people of the UK to self-determination, it should be no wonder that they also oppose it for the people of the Crimea.

If the USA was genuinely interested in human liberty, democracy, and self-determination, it would be placing economic sanctions on Brussels, not Moscow.


Europe’s tide turns

Switzerland rejects the EU-imposed free movement of peoples required by Shengen:

Voters in Switzerland have
narrowly approved a rightwing proposal to curb immigration. It imposes
limits on the number of foreigners allowed in and may signal an end to
the country’s free movement accord with the European Union. The initiative was approved by just 50.3% of the votes and was passed by a majority of cantons.

The
move by the Swiss People’s Party – known for its anti-foreigner and
anti-EU agenda – will see the reintroduction of quotas, as well as a
national preference when filling job vacancies and restrictions of
immigrants’ rights to social benefits.

Critically, it also
stipulates that Switzerland will have to renegotiate its bilateral
accord with the EU on the free movement of people within three years or
revoke it. This in turn could threaten other bilateral agreements with
the EU.

This should mark the high water mark for mass immigration madness and perhaps the much needed reawakening of nationalism across the West as well. Switzerland is an excellent barometer in this regard because it is the only Western nation where the people have the ability to democratically overrule its representative leadership and the political games that allow the Western governments to ignore the democratic will of the people.


France rises again

It is interesting to see that even the globalist expats are observing precisely the same nationalist phenomenon growing that I have observed across Europe. The key difference, of course, being that they disapprove of it whereas I wholeheartedly approve of this eminently predictable development:

PARIS — It is difficult to go more than a day in France without hearing
someone express the conviction that the greatest problem in the country
is its ethnic minorities, that the presence of immigrants compromises
the identity of France itself. This conviction is typically expressed
without any acknowledgment of the country’s historical responsibility as
a colonial power for the presence of former colonial subjects in
metropolitan France, nor with any willingness to recognize that France
will be ethnically diverse from here on out, and that it’s the
responsibility of the French as much as of the immigrants to make this
work.

In the past year I have witnessed incessant stop-and-frisk of young
black men in the Gare du Nord; in contrast with New York, here in Paris
this practice is scarcely debated. I was told by a taxi driver as we
passed through a black neighborhood: “I hope you got your shots. You
don’t need to go to Africa anymore to get a tropical disease.” On
numerous occasions, French strangers have offered up the observation to
me, in reference to ethnic minorities going about their lives in the
capital: “This is no longer France. France is over.” There is a
constant, droning presupposition in virtually all social interactions
that a clear and meaningful division can be made between the people who
make up the real France and the impostors….

Equality is of course one of the virtues on which the French Republic
was founded, yet critics of the Enlightenment philosophy behind the
Revolution have long noticed a double standard: when equality is
invoked, these critics note, it is understood that this is equality among equals.
Political and social inequality is allowed to go on as before, as long
as it is presumed that this is rooted in a natural inequality….

The American approach to immigration is plainly rooted in historical
exigencies connected to the appropriation of a continent, and it is this
same history of appropriation that continues to induce shame in most
Euro-Americans who might otherwise be tempted to describe themselves as
natives. America has to recognize its hybrid and constructed identity,
since the only people who can plausibly lay claim to native status are
the very ones this new identity was conjured to displace. But in Europe
no similar displacement plays a role in historical memory: Europeans can
more easily imagine themselves to be their own natives, and so can
imagine any demographic impact on the continent from the extra-European
world as the harbinger of an eventual total displacement.

The writer is an idiot multiculturalist, of course, but he does correctly identify the fundamental difference between European attitude towards mass migration and the American attitude. Where he is completely wrong is in forgetting that Europeans don’t have to “imagine themselves to be their own natives”, as they are quite literally the indigenous people of Europe, they have the same rights to protection in Europe that are afforded to indigenous peoples elsewhere, and they cannot permit any displacement there because they have literally nowhere else to go.

Israel for the Jews. Japan for the Japanese. Europe for the various nations of Europe. And France for the French. Nationalism is not a difficult or dangerous concept, it is a moral imperative and a divine decree. The globalist, multicultural dogma is not merely impractical, it is immoral and overtly anti-Biblical, being Babel writ large.


Dumber than the GOP

It’s really remarkable when you can find a modern political party anywhere in the world more tone-deaf than the Republican Party. But there is one in the United Kingdom:

Nick Clegg is to launch an ‘aggressive’ defence of the European Union in a direct challenge to the rise of the UK Independence Party. The Liberal Democrat leader will use his New Year message next week to pitch his party as the only one ‘fully committed’ to Britain remaining in the EU. He will argue that with a tide of Eurosceptism engulfing the Tories and Labour wavering about even promising a referendum, only the Lib Dems will make the case as the ‘party of in’.

The Liberal Democrats have long been a joke. And while Clegg is a confirmed Europhile, this strategy strikes me as so stupid that it must be a purely cynical grab for cash from the European Commission. It won’t win the Lib Dems any votes, but it will guarantee Clegg a handsome payday and a cushy post-political retirement.

It tends to remind one of the squatty demon in Spawn, watching the teenage devil-worshippers and lamenting the way in which their followers tended to be morons.


Correcting the NYT

The New York Times has Europe precisely backwards as falsely equates fascism with populism. In Europe, it is the anti-immigrant populist parties that are pro-democracy and anti-fascism; some of them are openly left-wing. Fascism is not returning to Europe, it is already there in the form of the openly anti-democratic and corporatist European Union.

Across the Atlantic, however, populism is resurgent. Indeed, many fear that the European Parliament may be at risk of a right-wing populist takeover following elections in May 2014. In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Front has, for the first time in that country’s history, pulled ahead in polls for the European Union election. Ahead of the elections to the European Parliament, Ms. Le Pen recently announced her intention to form a “Eurosceptic” alliance with the Dutch politician Geert Wilders , whose right-wing Party for Freedom demonizes Islam and attacks immigration.

In Italy, former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who controlled politics in that country for decades, peppered his Thatcherite free-market nationalism with spectacular doses of scandal, shady dealings and corruption. In his wake, “populism from above” has given way to a staunchly anti-political populism from below. Beppe Grillo, a comedian turned activist, sent shock waves through the establishment in February when his Five Star Movement won 25 percent of the vote. Mr. Grillo, who in the run-up to the election called for a referendum on whether to keep Italy in the euro zone, stressed the need to wrest power from the oligarchic elite and return it to the people. Prime Minister Enrico Letta, who took office in April, recently warned that populism posed a threat to European Union stability.

While they may seek the breakup of the European Union, most of these new European populist movements don’t aim to eliminate democracy altogether. In Greece, however, the emergence of a strand of populism deeply rooted in the fascist past is particularly troubling. The country’s crippling financial ills, and Brussels’ insistence on austerity measures, have generated populist responses that evoke the worst of interwar European fascism. The neo-fascist Golden Dawn party, which won 7 percent of the vote in Greece’s 2012 parliamentary elections, openly uses a logo resembling a swastika. Its supporters have perpetrated violent physical attacks on immigrants and political opponents (including murder); its party line includes anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Similar sentiments are also on the rise in Hungary, where the nationalistic, anti-immigration, anti-Semitic Jobbik party is in line to become the second-largest in Parliament.

With their radical stance against pluralism and minority rights, Greece’s right-wing populists and their Hungarian counterparts — along with dozens of anti-European Union parties poised to win seats in next year’s parliamentary elections — make today’s burgeoning European brands of populism much more frightening than their Latin American counterparts.

There is nothing at all frightening about the much-needed resurgence of nationalism in Europe. The European people have turned aggressively against multiculturalism and mass immigration, and because the European media is dominated by social democrats rather than the rabid immigrationists that run the US media, the reporting is considerably more even-handed there. The article fails to note that there are twice as many Golden Dawn members murdered by its political opponents than there are Golden Dawn-affiliated murders or to point out that its anti-democratic political opponents have actually tried outlaw the party.

Europe isn’t religious in the same sense that America is, but on the other hand, their sense of belonging to an identifiably Christian nationalist culture tends to runs more deeply and is firmly entrenched in many of the most secular Europeans. They have seen the consequences of multiculturalism and most of them hate it. And unlike Americans, even the most famously tolerant Europeans, the Swiss, have a history of practicing rigid ethnic, religious, and linguistic cleansing.

In a comment on a previous post that is relevant here, Steve notes that
everything we used to believe concerning the positive aspects of both the European Union and American
left-liberalism were based on lies: “The same people who used to skate by on “commitment to scientific
truth, democracy, and tolerance” are increasingly discarding the velvet
glove in favor of the iron fist now that science is strongly suggesting
they are wrong, the popular will is moving against democracy, and their
“tolerance” is now proven to go only one way –  towards tolerating
sexual perversion,anti-Christian religious persecution, and anti-white
racism.”


An amusing revelation

Keep in mind that Alex from London is the sort of Englishman who invariably mocks American ignorance of the world:

This is the terrifying moment a trio of gunmen stormed into a disco and opened fire on a crowd of terrified dancers.CCTV captured the moment when the men pull out their guns and push past bouncers to get inside the disco in Cali, Colombia, before they start spraying bullets around the room.The victims’ blood flowed out of the nightclub and into the street after the gruesome 20-minute long attack.

 Alex, London, United Kingdom, 2 hours ago
“Absolutely horrific! Hopefully Obama will be able to change their gun law. It can’t carry on the way it is.”

It should certainly be fascinating to see what Obama can accomplish with regards to the gun crime in Cali, Colombia. This should take place not long after David Cameron deals with the pressing issue of the undercapitalized banks in Athens, Greece.