God bless the French

Posted by Albion Blogger on May 29, 2005, 09:30 PM | #

A ‘yes’ might have helped the UK, actually.

I for one do not want to see a Euro-fanatic running the Conservative Party. If the French had voted ‘yes’ then the fanatic (Ken Clarke) would have had to plead for the Constitution to a British public who would almost certainly tell him where to go.

Knowing he would be walking straight into a defeat might have dissuaded him to stand for the Party leadership in the first place. Now he knows it’s no longer an issue there’s an outside chance we’re going to end up with Prime Minister Clarke.

Thanks very bloody much, France.

AB

Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 09:32 PM | #

Vive la France!

Just teasing

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 09:36 PM | #

Now he knows it’s no longer an issue there’s an outside chance we’re going to end up with Prime Minister Clarke.

I’m not sure I agree with that actually. The thing is, this defeat is a major setback for all the EU-philes across the spectrum. And being an EU-phile can be seen to be a major drawback if the anti-EU Tories play their cards right.

I don’t think a Clarke’s prime ministership is a foregone conclusion. We don’t need another Ted Heath!

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 09:38 PM | #

Vive la France!

Just teasing

John, I thought you had promised that you won’t tease us..........

Posted by John S Bolton on May 29, 2005, 09:39 PM | #

The internationalists may have just suffered a major setback. There is no popular support for their project; and no amount of mendacious propaganda can make up for their lack of rational arguments for supersovereignties of such dubious efficacy.

Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:58 PM | #

“supersovereignties of such dubious efficacy. “

I would have said “poisonous supersovereignties”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 11:12 PM | #

God bless the French!  Vive la France!

John Ray, why would you, with such anti-nation-state attitudes, celebrate a defeat for the E.U. which is an anti-nation-state outfit par excellence?

What I’d like to see would be a strong Europe, as strong as possible; the U.S. Army totally out of Germany, Belgium, and everywhere else in Europe (totally out of Japan too); E.U.-type economic unions limited to groups of ethnically/culturally-similar nations (which ones, specifically, can be worked out); E.U.-type unions, which are good things if done right, would NOT entail elimination of national borders, national currencies, or national identities by means of pernicious Tranzi doctrines such as “free movement of labor to go along with free movement of capital”; education of European populations to make them understand that sometimes in this world little inefficiencies must be paid for in the form of slightly higher prices for goods and services, for currency-exchange across borders, and so on, in the name of preserving the traditional nation and culture; complete restoration of immigration sanity for all European nations and the adoption of a few simple measures aimed at bringing back the status quo ante in regard to racial/ethnic balances of European countries.  (Certain additional things go without saying:  the utter rejection of PC, multiculturalism, “diversity"-worship, U.S. pop-"culture" in all its forms, and so on.)

Posted by John S Bolton on May 29, 2005, 11:14 PM | #

Of course, you are right; the problem is that they do damage, not that they are ineffectual as parasitical or poisonous agencies.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on May 30, 2005, 04:44 AM | #

I would like to know the real agenda of these supranational agencies and the individuals behind them. For some reason I suspect the usual suspects will turn up.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 05:21 AM | #

“I would like to know the real agenda of these supranational agencies and the individuals behind them.” (—Tournament of Champions)

Here‘s a big chunk of it, Tournament:
______

TRANSNATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM

The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:

1) The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.

2) A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist “privileged vs. marginalized” dichotomy.

3) Group proportionalism as the goal of “fairness.” Transnational progressivism assumes that “victim” groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of “underrepresentation.”

4) The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the “dominant” culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.

5) The “demographic imperative.” The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes “diversity,” defined as group proportionalism.

6) The redefinition of democracy and “democratic ideals.” Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of “democracy” from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education’s leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that “to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power.” Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different “peoples” that live within America “share power” as groups.

7) Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of “Britishness” and declared that British history needed to be “revised, rethought, or jettisoned.” In the U.S., the proposed “National History Standards,” recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural “convergence” of three civilizations—Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a “post-Zionist” intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized “sovereignty” and called for regional “elected central bodies,” a type of Middle Eastern EU.

8) Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully “Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?”

9) The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of “global governance” because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

The same scholars who touted multiculturalism now herald the coming transnational age. [...] The promotion of transnationalism is an attempt to shape this crucial intellectual struggle over globalization. Its adherents imply that one is either in step with globalization, and thus forward-looking, or one is a backward antiglobalist.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 05:25 AM | #

That link I just posted, above, didn’t work.  Here it is again.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 05:39 AM | #

And here‘s another big influence (private, George-Soros-financed NGOs, billions of dollars’ worth, operating all over Europe, whose goal is to completely destroy the place).

Posted by Tournament of Champions on May 30, 2005, 01:50 PM | #

Thanks Fred. Same elements of majority displacement and ethnic deracination.
Glad the French killed it, though I’d like to see the actual faces of those who created and continue to push the agenda identified by KMD.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 01, 2005, 04:35 AM | #

The Dutch are expected to deliver the death-blow.

“Hailing the French result as ‘the beginning of the end for the European super-state,’ right-wing Member of Parliament Geert Wilders said: ‘The treaty is half buried, but Brussels is clever enough to revive it. For that reason the Dutch electorate must overwhelmingly vote no.’ ”