Kissinger, the EU and the Irish referendum

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 08 June 2008 00:45.

Today I came across a video slice of a Henry Kissinger interview about the troubled and troubling process of European integration. The interview was conducted by Peter Robinson for National Review Online, and it’s dated 22nd April 2008.

Kissinger was an academic connected to the Council on Foreign Relations in the late 1950s while the Treaty of Rome was being planned. His specialism was security, with reference to nuclear weapons. Obviously, one of the major strands in the European project was the prevention of a third 20th Century war, so he may well have contributed to the CFR’s adumbrations on the subject, and the somewhat royal “We” he employs in the interview is more than likely justified.

In any event, at one minute in, the old thaumaturge relieves himself of the following remark:-

Did we make a mistake? Probably not, because Europe was strained by two world wars, and the European nation state was no longer in a position to carry out the global responsibilities which used to be characteristic of Europe. We over-estimated, however, what could be achievable. We thought you could transfer the loyalties of the nation state to the greater organisation that was being created, and that has turned out to be wrong or not feasible. So Europe, in a way, is now suspended between its past, which it has partially given up, and it’s future which it hasn’t yet reached - and maybe never reach.

Next Thursday 12th June, the Irish electorate will go to the polls as the only member nation of the EU to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Last week the Irish Times published an opinion poll which showed the swashbuckling “No” Campaign ahead for the first time:-

35% No (up 17%)
30% Yes (down 5%)
35% Don’t Know (down 12%)

It seems highly likely that we are witnessing yet again the phenomenon of the Establishment - all the political parties, the media, business and almost all the unions - throwing its full weight behind a “Yes” Campaign, and meeting with a firm rejection from the people. If the present polling trend continues and proves accurate on the day, the vote could be around 57/43 for a “No”, which is enough to make it difficult to impossible for the EU Commission to squeak through later on by negotiating a few sops - on abortion, say - to Irish public opinion.

So the fork in the way hoves into view. The EU machine is not going to be halted in its drive against the European nation state. But Europe’s peoples are not going to lend it legitimisation. They have demonstrated beyond all doubt that Kissinger is right - the loyalties of the nation state cannot be transferred to the “greater organisation”. Europe will never reach its allotted future. Its peoples, already disinterested in the project, will grow cynical. And the first place where that will become apparent is the EU parliament elections next year. I am confident of Europe-wide disenchantment, with a turnout mostly in the 30% to 40% range and stronger than expected showings by anti-EU and nationalist parties.

There is next to nothing that the EU can do immediately to change this situation. It cannot sell itself to us now, when it has failed so spectacularly all along. At the best of times, there is an air of fantasy about many of the EU’s ambitions. If the natural north-south stress points in the hitherto successful Euro give way under the pressure of a global slowdown, dreams are all the Eurocrats will have left. Dreams and tax receipts and political power, of course.

One dream - a race traitor’s dream - is Eurabia, upon which Kissinger opined in that NRO interview:-

Well, the Europe we know and the Europe that dominated world affairs for two or three hundred years was a Europe of ethnically compact, linguistically cohesive states. If the demographic equasion moved in the way that you [Peter Robinson] describe, then obviously the nature of the European state as it has existed up to now will fundamentally alter. And political debates will be conducted on more ethnic and fewer ideological lines.

The Strategy of Tension, then, could present the only secure route to “the future” for Europe’s treacherous rulers. Europe’s peoples, let it be said, are not naturally disposed to eschew it.

Tags: European Union

Comments:

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 06:34 | #

This is off-topic, but I recommend increasing the number of recent comments to encompass at least 24 hours (ideally 48 hours) of contributions. Perhaps half the strength of a good blog lies in its comments, it’s a shame if some fall off the map…

Posted by Bill on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:20 | #

They just don’t get it.

” We thought you could transfer the loyalties of the nation state to the greater organisation that was being created, and that has turned out to be wrong or not feasible.

Surprise, surprise, who would have thought it? The huge disconnect, black hole, blind spot in the rear view mirror, call it what you like, is ever present with these people, all the high IQ’s in the world and they still get the fundamentals wrong. Everything they do is built on sand.

But they never give up - do they?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 15:50 | #

JWH links to this MR.com entry in his blog’s “Doom Watch” feature, and comments:

Kissinger’s statement that future “political debate” will be conducted on “ethnic lines” is laughable [...].

Newsflash: such an “ethnic political debate” is currently essentially illegal in the EU, and will become increasingly legally untenable as speech restriction loopholes are closed.

This is the point that no one wants to acknowledge: you cannot have a “debate” on a subject if one side of the “debate” has its opinions criminalized.

Of course, perhaps Kissinger envisions an “ethnic political debate” between different non-Europeans living in Europe (for whom, of course, the “rules of engagement” are quite different) with respect to how the destruction of the West and its peoples is to be best carried out.

The idea that indigenous Europeans themselves can participate in such a “debate” in a fair manner is a fantasy of those who cannot or will not admit the truth about what the EU has become, and what it is becoming.

Posted by j on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:14 | #

It is a profound insight that in multi ethnic societies there is no ideological debate, but ethnic or tribal politics. Look at the United States, what was the ideological issue between Obama and Clinton? None that I know of.

I disagree with Scrooby that “ethnic political debate” is currently essentially illegal in the EU. There is a hot debate going on, but it is not formulated in crude ethnic concepts (except in the obsolete extreme right) but in acceptable terms, using euphemisms. People are not idiots and they see and talk about the issue, but in polite words that are used in good society.

Those who want to return to Nazi terminology forget that it was created when European nations were extremely homogeneous and most people had never met an African, a Turk or a Jew (except in Berlin or Vienna). Should Hitler speak disrespectfully of Africans today, when some 10% of the population is African, he would have caused a three-day street riot and be shot with his comrades.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:41 | #

The heart of the conflict, j, is that we Whites have nothing to gain by any association with non-whites. Non-whites need us to maintain a first-world standard of living, we don’t need them. They are dead weight, that is the blunt truth.

As for your implied threat about Africans rioting now that they constitute 10% of the population in whatever hypothetical country you were speaking of: you only make our point for us. They are not fit for civilization.

You honestly think Hitler would have been cowed by negroes rioting?!?! LMFAO!

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:57 | #

Lurker.

I have increased the number of left-column comment reports from 25 to 35. I trust that will suffice.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:14 | #

The idea, guys, is that the Pee-Cee cuffs will be taken off when it suits the elites to switch from an ideological approach, where certain thoughts must be proscribed, to a Strategy of Tension. Our response at that time should be to refuse to be dragged into endless, minor ethnic squabbling productive only of a waste of our energies, and to go after the schemers and the traitors instead. But nationalism throughout the EU is pretty much fixated on the Moslem foe. As things stand, we will play the game allotted to us.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:19 | #

JWH has some choice words for “j” over at Western Biopolitics.

http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/06/nec-watch-j.html

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:19 | #

Its great to have the extra comments and all but my regular disclaimer, it was an ersatz Lurker who made the request!

J - Who would be doing the shooting? It wouldnt be the rioting Africans, it would be the state/elites/whoever thus proving who is in charge and what is acceptable in their eyes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:38 | #

“Those who want to return to Nazi terminology forget that it was created when European nations were extremely homogeneous and most people had never met an African, a Turk or a Jew (except in Berlin or Vienna). Should Hitler speak disrespectfully of Africans today, when some 10% of the population is African, he would have caused a three-day street riot and be shot with his comrades.” (—“J”)

J, hereditary, genetically-determined race exists and all races are different from one another physically, cognitively, and behaviorally (different at the group level), the differences being at least partly inborn (i.e., genetic, such that the Law of Large Numbers decrees they’ll be unchangeable through social engineering schemes like Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” at the level of populations considered in their aggregates, even if at the level of the random individual some of the broad populational patterns fail to manifest). I want to clear that up first, since there are people who dispute that. (If you dispute it, no need to read further.)

Race exists and it’s not only important, it’s of primordial importance. Few things are as important. (If you dispute its importance, again no need to read further because communication won’t be possible.)

We are normal people, not “rightists” or “extreme rightists” but ordinary folk like yourself who are furious at the excessive incompatible immigration both legal and illegal that’s being imposed on us by our respective governments and changing our traditional national races (changing them to non-white is the main grievance but changing them from one kind of white to another, such as English to Polish, is also unacceptable).

Some of us are pretty mad at organized Jewry for their major role in it (the Jews were the leading force among those who succeeded in prying the U.S. borders open to the non-white Third World in 1965 and have been the leading force keeping anyone from closing them again ever since).

When people who are pushed to the point of becoming infuriated use strong language it’s understandable. All normal people, you included, can be pushed to that point.

You refer to what you call “Nazi terminology,” saying “it was created when European nations were extremely homogeneous [...].” I’m not sure what you consider “Nazi terminology,” but I’ll say this: we resent the way that homogeneity you refer to was taken away from us, unconsulted and unwilling, and we want it back. We demand it. We will never compromise on this. And the intensity of our passion in regard to this epochal civilizational outrage and filthy genocidal crime beyond description is as extreme as you can imagine. Consider also that our side is building in strength and numbers.

The other side can easily rectify things but they don’t want to because race-replacement is specifically what they’re after. Race-replacement is the whole point. They know perfectly well what they’re doing and how mad we are. They’re counting on winning. Time will tell who will win.

Once again: we’re ordinary folk just like you, neither “rightist,” nor “extreme rightist.” Normal, ordinary folk who are outraged beyond words.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:43 | #

Lurker, since you’re no longer limiting yourself to lurking but have taken up commenting, maybe it’s time to choose a new pen name? (You’re Lurker Mk-I, right?) That would end confusion. Lurker Mark-II might consider doing the same: he’s no longer “lurking” either, but is a semi-regular commenter.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:46 | #

J, I meant to add that what you objected to in my post wasn’t written by me but was copied-and-pasted from another blog: see the link. (As Captainchaos pointed out above, that other blogger responded to your criticism.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:38 | #

To J:

Any thoughts on these two articles up tonight over at Vdare.com? Here and here.

In that Hannah Rosin thing (first link), why would she and Mort Zuckerman who owns The Atlantic Monthly both be playing dumb about what’s going on with Negroes and crime rates? Why are they both playing games on this subject, do you think? Obviously each knows the score on this matter, as any “fly on the wall” of Zuckerman’s home or office can doubtless tell you, and same for Rosin. But for some reason both are playing games here, feigning ignorance, with a straight face. How come? Can you read articles like that without feeling as if you’re watching a pro-wrestling match every detail of which is phony and intended to dupe the audience? What’s Zuckerman’s motive for running The Atlantic Monthly the way that McMahon guy runs the World Wrestling Federation on TV? Any thoughts? Isn’t that magazine supposed to be a serious publication? Why the make-believe then? What’s your guess as to Zuckerman’s and Rosin’s ethnicity?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:15 | #

“Race exists and it’s not only important, it’s of primordial importance. Few things are as important.” (—from my comment)

“J” will answer with, “When I’m with someone I judge him first and foremost by qualities other than race.”

(So do I. We all do at this blog; dunno about other blogs. Any who don’t need not concern us here.)

So I should have put something like this:

Race exists and the issue of forcing a national change of race on a country is not only important from the point of view of the country’s inhabitants, it’s of primordial importance. Few things are as important, in the opinion of most at this blog.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:11 | #

God forbid someone stands up in the French parliament and says that “French genetic interests require repatriation of all non-Europeans living in France,” or some such thing. Call the cops!

Here, I’ll say it: French genetic interests require the humane, financially-reimbursed repatriation of all non-Europeans living in France and ethnoracial restrictions on new immigration consistent with those same genetic interests as well as with cultural ones (coupled with the easing/rectification of tax policies and all social policies that have the effect of depressing indigenous French birth rates below where they should be for the nation’s demographic well-being).

If that’s “Nazi terminology” (and it is) it means there was nothing wrong with the Nazis and we shouldn’t have fought the war against them.

Is that “Nazi terminology,” J? Is there anything wrong with what it says? Your nation, Israel, and every sane nation, is run on precisely those principles. Is Israel wrong to have adopted them for itself? Is Japan? Would France be wrong, if it were to adopt them?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:35 | #

“There is a hot debate going on” (—J)

There is? Where? I haven’t seen it. All I’ve seen has been demonization of “hate speech” by the other side the instant one of us opens his mouth. I’ve seen no “debate” permitted by the race-replacers, whether debate with euphemisms or debate with direct language, whether “hot,” luke warm, or ice-cold debate. I’ve seen none permitted by the other side. Where have you seen this “hot debate going on”?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:43 | #

We want large-scale immigration that’s racially or ethnoculturally incompatible with traditional Eurosphere populations halted and the skewed demographics already deliberately engineered by the other side in their stealth back-stab humanely reversed through a humane repatriation plan. Where is that being “hotly debated” other than at a few brave web-sites such as this one?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:53 | #

A humane repatriation plan plus the rescinding of all the artificial social-service, welfare, and anti-discrimination incentives currently in place that induce them to stay, so that, once these artificial inducements to stay are rescinded, large numbers of them would pack up and leave on their own: it’s known as the “push-pull” strategy to get them to go back home, or the “carrot and stick.” Rescinding these inducements to stay is the “push” part of the strategy, or the “stick,” while financial reimbursements — a government buy-out of their citizenship, so to speak — is the “pull” part, or the “carrot.” As Norman Lowell has said, those who won’t accept the carrot will be shown the stick.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:59 | #

How to finance the thing? For starters, get the hell out of Bush’s war for Oil and Israel. Next comes all the money you save thanks to plummeting crime rates as they gradually leave the country. And so on. If worse comes to worst, issue bonds: government borrowing by a partially race-replaced Euro country in order to restore its traditional racial make-up is the best and surest national investment it could make: the value of those bonds will be like gold.

Posted by Lurker (mk1) on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:51 | #

Fred, with all due respect, Ive been commenting, not just lurking, here since…just…checking…December ‘04 (if search is correct your first comment was only 25 days earlier, so we hatched almost together!) and always as ‘Lurker’. Maybe I will change names, though consistency is good I feel.

Posted by Troll Watch on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:44 | #

The response to Lurker’s request is a bit pointless, as we just get the 35 latest posts by Scrooby instead of the last 20!

Can you please restrict how often he posts his drivel.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:11 | #

“The response to Lurker’s request is a bit pointless, as we just get the 35 latest posts by Scrooby instead of the last 20! Can you please restrict how often he posts his drivel.” (—Troll Watch)

All right, that makes one more vote added to those in favor of Nux Gnomica’s longstanding request that I shut up, so I’ll have to listen. No need to restrict me, I’ll restrict myself. Why don’t you post more often, Troll Watch? All we ever hear from you is when you reveal someone’s identity. No one knows your opinions on things.

I’ll stop posting for a while (I’m busy with other things anyway).

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:24 | #

Fred, your comments are always welcome at rustymason.blogspot.com.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:27 | #

Are you guys crazy? Fred Scrooby is one of the best things this site has going for it. When I visit this site I mostly read and it seems like there is never enough, take Fred out of the equation and there will be even less.

Some have accused Fred of “being a cheerleader” and “patroling the ideological fences” and “repeating himself” and “being a one-trick-pony”, I think those are accurate descriptions of some of what he does but whereas others think it annoying I think it edifying and entertaining.

Fred has passion, often times shooting from the hip, but is this bad? I think it shows a human face to us and our cause. It shows that we are not just bloodless Nazi cyborgs programmed to hate jews.

Besides, Fred’s writing his hillarious. NEVER under estimate the value of humor and satire in getting our message across and just plain keeping our own spirits up.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:32 | #

GW wrote: ” ... [the EU] cannot sell itself to us now.”

At least Europeans have the luxury of seeing the Beast. Here in the U.S., the Beast, the North American Union, is growing in darkness. It will be here with full strength before most of us are even aware of its existence.

Posted by Rusty Mason on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:39 | #

J, Fred Scrooby and JWH have you nailed at Western Biopolitics: http://westbiop.blogspot.com/2008/06/nec-watch-j.html

Thanks again to CaptainChaos for the link.

Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:39 | #

Here is Pat Buchanan arguing with a jew about anti-White hypocrisy and Obama and such.

http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/06/pat-buchanan-exposes-medias-racial-hypocrisy-concerning-obama

Posted by Lurker (mk1) on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:19 | #

Im always happy to read your posts Fred.

Posted by torgrim on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:34 | #

Keep at it Fred!

Your range finder and target are mostly dead on…keep shooting!

Posted by Bill on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:53 | #

Carry on carrying on Fred, you must be needling somebody somewhwere.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:45 | #

Spare a thought for the sturdy Stuart Wheeler as he battles on every true Brit’s behalf to force the government to honour its election pledge of a referendum on Lisbon. The case will run into tomorrow. The judgement will not be available before the Irish voters deliver theirs.

Posted by .357 on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:36 | #

“All right, that makes one more vote added to those in favor of Nux Gnomica’s longstanding request that I shut up, so I’ll have to listen. No need to restrict me, I’ll restrict myself.”

That isn’t the Fred I’ve/we’ve come to know. He wouldn’t let his detractors prevail so easily. So hop back on your horse and start commenting again, Scrooby!

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments