Deux jeunes gens accusés d'avoir roué de coups un retraité dans le métro de Munich ont été inculpés de tentative de meurtre. Jeudi soir, un retraité de 76 ans a été tabassé dans une station de métro, dans une scène d'une rare violence filmée par les caméras de surveillance qui ont permis de retrouver les suspects, tous les deux chômeurs.
Les deux auteurs présumés, un jeune Turc de 20 ans et un Grec âgé de 17 ans, sont en outre poursuivis pour coups et blessures graves, a indiqué un porte-parole de la police de Munich.
Le retraité, qui souffre de blessures graves, les avait priés d'éteindre leur cigarette dans la rame de métro, selon la police. Ils l'ont traité "de sale Allemand" et lui ont craché dessus avant de l'attaquer et le rouer de coups de pieds une fois à terre, lui fracturant le crâne.
Saturday, 29 December 2007
Un chauffeur de bus poignardé dans les quartiers Nord de Marseille
En un éclair, la lame du canif est venue se planter sous l'aisselle du malheureux. Ployant sous la douleur, ce chauffeur de 34 ans s'est écroulé sur le plancher du bus. Il était 9h30, hier matin, lorsque l'auteur de cette sauvage agression et son comparse ont pris la fuite à toutes jambes, laissant les passagers du bus 97 terrorisés. Le véhicule de la RTM venait de marquer l'arrêt au terminus de l'hôpital Nord lorsque ces deux hommes sont montés à bord, refusant de payer leur titre de transport.
Au chauffeur qui les rappelait à l'ordre, les fraudeurs ont répondu par des injures, des menaces… et soudain, ce coup de canif qui visait peut-être la victime au coeur. Mais celle-ci n'était pas au bout de son calvaire. Selon plusieurs témoignages recueillis par les policiers, le chauffeur aurait subi une deuxième agression. "Quelques minutes plus tard, juste avant l'arrivée de la police, une trentaine d'hommes d'origine roumaine se sont présentés au terminus, armés avec des barres de fer", indique un enquêteur. La victime, qui gisait encore à terre, aurait une nouvelle fois été frappée.
Conduit aux urgences de Nord, l'agent de la RTM s'en tire avec deux points de suture. Et un énorme traumatisme. Grâce aux signalements donnés par des témoins, des suspects étaient rapidement repérés et interpellés dans le squat de Roumains du chemin du Vallon-des-Pins (l'ancienne ferme pédagogique du 15 e arrondissement). Présentés hier pour une confrontation, l'un d'eux a été formellement reconnu par la victime comme l'auteur des coups de barre de fer. L'agresseur présumé est un Roumain âgé de 30 ans. Il a été placé en garde à vue. Et pendant ce temps, des milliers de Marseillais ont fait de la marche à pied.
Au chauffeur qui les rappelait à l'ordre, les fraudeurs ont répondu par des injures, des menaces… et soudain, ce coup de canif qui visait peut-être la victime au coeur. Mais celle-ci n'était pas au bout de son calvaire. Selon plusieurs témoignages recueillis par les policiers, le chauffeur aurait subi une deuxième agression. "Quelques minutes plus tard, juste avant l'arrivée de la police, une trentaine d'hommes d'origine roumaine se sont présentés au terminus, armés avec des barres de fer", indique un enquêteur. La victime, qui gisait encore à terre, aurait une nouvelle fois été frappée.
Conduit aux urgences de Nord, l'agent de la RTM s'en tire avec deux points de suture. Et un énorme traumatisme. Grâce aux signalements donnés par des témoins, des suspects étaient rapidement repérés et interpellés dans le squat de Roumains du chemin du Vallon-des-Pins (l'ancienne ferme pédagogique du 15 e arrondissement). Présentés hier pour une confrontation, l'un d'eux a été formellement reconnu par la victime comme l'auteur des coups de barre de fer. L'agresseur présumé est un Roumain âgé de 30 ans. Il a été placé en garde à vue. Et pendant ce temps, des milliers de Marseillais ont fait de la marche à pied.
Saturday, 22 December 2007
"Pan Arabo" Meditterranean.
Le président français Nicolas Sarkozy et les chefs de gouvernement italien Romano Prodi et espagnol José Luis Zapatero ont lancé ensemble ce jeudi soir un "Appel de Rome pour l'Union de la Méditerranée", qu'ils entendent concrétiser lors d'une conférence à Paris, le 13 juillet prochain.
Le "rôle" de la Méditerranée
Lors d'une conférence de presse commune, ils ont tenu à placer cette vision d'une union politique apportant "la paix et le développement" entre les deux rives de la Méditerranée dans l'esprit du Traité de Rome de 1957. C'est ce traité qui a donné naissance à l'Union Européenne.
"Convaincus du fait que la Méditerranée, creuset de culture et de civilisation, doit reprendre son rôle de zone de paix, de prospérité, de tolérance", MM. Sarkozy, Prodi et Zapatero indiquent dans ce texte s'être réunis à Rome "pour réfléchir ensemble aux lignes directrices du projet d'Union pour la Méditerranée".
L'union "aura pour vocation de réunir Europe et Afrique autour des pays riverains de la Méditerranée et d'instituer un partenariat sur un pied d'égalité entre les pays du pourtour méditerranéen", soulignent-ils.
Elle sera "le coeur et le moteur de la coopération en Méditerranée et pour la Méditerranée" et visera à "rendre plus claires et visibles les actions que les différentes institutions développent en faveur de la Méditerranée", précise l'Appel.
Un complément aux procédures existantes
Ils indiquent s'être mis d'accord pour "inviter les chefs d'État et de Gouvernement des pays riverains de la Méditerranée à se réunir avec les pays de l'UE le 14 juillet à Paris pour définir leur vision commune" et que "ce sommet sera précédé d'une réunion des pays riverains le 13 juillet". La France assurera alors la présidence semestrielle de l'Union européenne depuis le 1er juillet.
Des travaux préparatoires seront entamés au cours des prochains mois par la France, l'Espagne et l'Italie "en étroite consultation avec les pays appelés à participer" à l'Union.
Cette nouvelle Union n'a pas "vocation à se substituer" aux procédures de coopération et de dialogue qui existent déjà en Méditerranée, mais "à les compléter, leur donner une impulsion supplémentaire", est-il souligné.
L'Union pour la Méditerranée "n'interfèrera ni dans le processus de stabilisation et d'association pour les pays concernés, ni dans le processus de négociation en cours entre l'Union européenne et la Croatie, d'une part, entre l'Union européenne et la Turquie, d'autre part", ont précisé les trois responsables européens.
Le "rôle" de la Méditerranée
Lors d'une conférence de presse commune, ils ont tenu à placer cette vision d'une union politique apportant "la paix et le développement" entre les deux rives de la Méditerranée dans l'esprit du Traité de Rome de 1957. C'est ce traité qui a donné naissance à l'Union Européenne.
"Convaincus du fait que la Méditerranée, creuset de culture et de civilisation, doit reprendre son rôle de zone de paix, de prospérité, de tolérance", MM. Sarkozy, Prodi et Zapatero indiquent dans ce texte s'être réunis à Rome "pour réfléchir ensemble aux lignes directrices du projet d'Union pour la Méditerranée".
L'union "aura pour vocation de réunir Europe et Afrique autour des pays riverains de la Méditerranée et d'instituer un partenariat sur un pied d'égalité entre les pays du pourtour méditerranéen", soulignent-ils.
Elle sera "le coeur et le moteur de la coopération en Méditerranée et pour la Méditerranée" et visera à "rendre plus claires et visibles les actions que les différentes institutions développent en faveur de la Méditerranée", précise l'Appel.
Un complément aux procédures existantes
Ils indiquent s'être mis d'accord pour "inviter les chefs d'État et de Gouvernement des pays riverains de la Méditerranée à se réunir avec les pays de l'UE le 14 juillet à Paris pour définir leur vision commune" et que "ce sommet sera précédé d'une réunion des pays riverains le 13 juillet". La France assurera alors la présidence semestrielle de l'Union européenne depuis le 1er juillet.
Des travaux préparatoires seront entamés au cours des prochains mois par la France, l'Espagne et l'Italie "en étroite consultation avec les pays appelés à participer" à l'Union.
Cette nouvelle Union n'a pas "vocation à se substituer" aux procédures de coopération et de dialogue qui existent déjà en Méditerranée, mais "à les compléter, leur donner une impulsion supplémentaire", est-il souligné.
L'Union pour la Méditerranée "n'interfèrera ni dans le processus de stabilisation et d'association pour les pays concernés, ni dans le processus de négociation en cours entre l'Union européenne et la Croatie, d'une part, entre l'Union européenne et la Turquie, d'autre part", ont précisé les trois responsables européens.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Bus incendié à Marseille: la famille Galledou obtient enfin des aveux
Le procès de l'incendie criminel d'un bus à Marseille, dans lequel une jeune femme, Mama Galledou, avait été grièvement brûlée en 2006, a connu un tournant mercredi, l'un des six accusés ayant reconnu avoir mis le feu au véhicule. .
Cet aveu est intervenu au troisième jour du procès à huis clos devant la cour d'assises des Bouches-du-Rhône. Les accusés, tous mineurs au moment des faits, refusaient jusqu'alors de dire qui, dans la soirée du 28 octobre 2006, avait jeté un mouchoir enflammé dans le bus arrosé d'essence, sur fond de rumeurs d'omerta et de représailles éventuelles.
Mama Galledou, une Franco-sénégalaise de 27 ans, avait été brûlée aux deuxième et troisième degrés sur 62% du corps.
En début d'audience mercredi, sa mère et son petit frère ont réclamé la vérité aux accusés, "au nom de la famille" en l'absence de la victime.
Mais selon Me Dominique Mattei, avocat de l'accusé qui a avoué, c'est l'audition de ses propres parents qui a incité ce dernier à briser le silence: "il semble que dans les propos de sa mère, il ait trouvé la force de s'exprimer".
Selon d'autres avocats de la défense, la mère de l'accusé, à la barre, a demandé à son fils de dire la vérité afin d'apaiser sa souffrance et celle de la mère de la victime. Son fils lui a alors glissé: "c'est moi".
Tandis que son père protestait contre ces aveux, pas spontanés à ses yeux, le jeune homme s'est emparé du micro pour décrire précisément la scène de l'incendie, distribuant les rôles de chacun, notamment le blocage des portes du bus et la dispersion de l'essence.
L'accusé s'est également excusé. Il a fait part de sa "honte", tout en assurant qu'il croyait le bus vide. "Je ne voulais pas, je suis désolé", a-t-il déclaré, selon d'autres avocats de la défense.
"C'est un aveu qui en a déclenché d'autres, l'authenticité commence, on est un peu débarrassé du mensonge", s'est félicité Me Alain Molla, qui défend Mama Galledou. "Ils ont enfin des choses à nous dire, y compris des éléments à décharge. Sur l'essentiel, on arrive à la vérité et cette vérité est libératrice", a-t-il poursuivi.
Me Mattei a souligné que le fait d'avoir avoué ne rendait pas son client "plus coupable que les autres". "Il n'a pas eu le premier rôle, on reste dans un phénomène de groupe", a-t-il affirmé.
Mais ses confrères posent désormais la question des responsabilités de chacun: "Les enjeux à venir, c'est la hiérarchie des peines ou non", a souligné Me Thierry Ospital, qui défend un autre accusé.
Me Alain Molla a souligné pour sa part qu'il ne voyait "pas de hiérarchie pour l'instant".
Les six accusés risquent théoriquement jusqu'à 30 ans de prison - 15 ans si l'excuse de minorité au moment des faits est retenue. Le verdict est attendu vendredi.
Fin septembre, deux adolescents qui faisaient partie du groupe d'incendiaires avaient déjà été condamnés à huit ans d'emprisonnement par le tribunal pour enfants de Marseille. Le parquet, qui en avait requis douze, a fait appel.
Monday, 3 December 2007
Al-Qaïda recruterait dans les prisons
Des islamistes radicaux font du recrutement et de l'endoctrinement dans les prisons canadiennes, rapporte le Journal de Montréal.
Selon un rapport secret du Centre intégré d'évaluation des menaces rédigé en janvier dernier et obtenu par le quotidien montréalais grâce à la Loi d'accès à l'information, les services secrets canadiens sont préoccupés par ce nouveau phénomène, qui est aussi présent dans d'autres pays.
Intitulé Menace que font peser les conversions à l'islam radical dans les prisons canadiennes, le rapport considère que la facilité relative avec laquelle les détenus peuvent se déclarer musulmans est alléchante.
Le document indique en outre que 59% des détenus inculpés d'une infraction liée au terrorisme sont mêlés aux autres prisonniers. Les radicaux se servent souvent de leur charisme pour influencer les autres détenus, peut-on lire dans le rapport.
Selon Mohamed Boudjenane, directeur exécutif de la Fédération canado-arabe, ce rapport ne fait qu'entretenir une paranoïa, un pattern qui fait que tout ce qui est musulman est menaçant.
Il soutient que le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité (SCRS) et la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC) ont démontré à plusieurs reprises dans le passé qu'ils sont incompétents lorsqu'il s'agit de glaner des informations ou des stratégies de contre-terrorisme.
Selon un rapport secret du Centre intégré d'évaluation des menaces rédigé en janvier dernier et obtenu par le quotidien montréalais grâce à la Loi d'accès à l'information, les services secrets canadiens sont préoccupés par ce nouveau phénomène, qui est aussi présent dans d'autres pays.
Intitulé Menace que font peser les conversions à l'islam radical dans les prisons canadiennes, le rapport considère que la facilité relative avec laquelle les détenus peuvent se déclarer musulmans est alléchante.
Le document indique en outre que 59% des détenus inculpés d'une infraction liée au terrorisme sont mêlés aux autres prisonniers. Les radicaux se servent souvent de leur charisme pour influencer les autres détenus, peut-on lire dans le rapport.
Selon Mohamed Boudjenane, directeur exécutif de la Fédération canado-arabe, ce rapport ne fait qu'entretenir une paranoïa, un pattern qui fait que tout ce qui est musulman est menaçant.
Il soutient que le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité (SCRS) et la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC) ont démontré à plusieurs reprises dans le passé qu'ils sont incompétents lorsqu'il s'agit de glaner des informations ou des stratégies de contre-terrorisme.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Accepter Israel comme l'Etat juif?
Étonnement, la combinaison entre les bases faussées de la rencontre d’Annapolis et la mollesse du premier ministre israélien Ehud Olmert («la paix est affaire de concession») a généré quelque chose d’utile. En effet, rompant avec ses prédécesseurs, Olmert a exigé avec vigueur que ses partenaires de négociation palestiniens acceptent l’existence permanente d’Israël en tant qu’État juif, suscitant ainsi une réaction révélatrice.
Olmert annonça le 11 novembre que si les Palestiniens ne reconnaissaient pas Israël comme «un État juif», les discussions d’Annapolis seraient stoppées. «Je n’ai pas l’intention de transiger d’une quelconque manière sur la question de l’État juif. Cela constituera une condition à notre reconnaissance d’un État palestinien.»
Il confirma cette position le lendemain, qualifiant la «reconnaissance d’Israël comme un État pour le peuple juif» de «point de départ à toutes les négociations. Nous n’entamerons aucun débat avec qui que ce soit sur le fait qu’Israël est un État pour le peuple juif.» Il releva aussi que les dirigeants palestiniens doivent «avoir la volonté de faire la paix avec Israël en tant qu’État Juif».
La mise en exergue de ce point a l’avantage d’attirer l’attention sur la question centrale du conflit israélo-arabe – le sionisme, le mouvement nationaliste juif, un aspect généralement ignoré dans le brouhaha des négociations. De fait, quasiment depuis la naissance de l’État, les pourparlers se sont concentrés sur la complexité de questions secondaires telles que les frontières, la disposition des troupes, le contrôle de l’armement et des armes, les lieux sacrés, les ressources naturelles, les droits d’établissement, la représentation diplomatique et les relations étrangères.
Les dirigeants palestiniens ont répliqué rapidement et sans équivoque à l’exigence d’Olmert:
Le Higher Arab Monitoring Committee de Nazareth décida à l’unanimité d’appeler l’Autorité palestinienne à ne pas reconnaître Israël comme un État juif.
Salam Fayad, le «premier ministre» de l’Autorité palestinienne: «Israël peut se définir comme il lui plaît, mais les Palestiniens ne le reconnaîtront pas comme État juif.»
Yasser Abed Rabbo, secrétaire général du comité exécutif de l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine: «Cette question n’est pas sur la table de négociation; elle est destinée à la consommation interne [israélienne].»
Ahmad Qurei, chef des négociateurs palestiniens: «Cette [exigence] est rejetée catégoriquement.»
Saeb Erekat, responsable des négociations de l’OLP: «Les Palestiniens ne reconnaîtront jamais l’identité juive d’Israël. (…) Il n’existe aucun pays dans le monde où les identités religieuse et nationale sont liées de cette manière.»
La généralisation d’Erekat est à la fois cureuse et révélatrice. Non seulement 56 États et l’OLP appartiennent à l’Organisation de la conférence islamique, mais la plupart d’entre eux, y compris l’OLP, font de la charia (la loi islamique) leur principale ou unique source de législation. L’Arabie Saoudite exige même que tous ses sujets soient musulmans.
En outre, le lien entre la religion et la nation n’est de loin pas l’apanage des pays musulmans. Comme le relève Jeff Jacoby, du Boston Globe, la loi argentine «charge le gouvernement de soutenir la foi catholique romaine. La reine Elizabeth II est le Gouverneur suprême de l’Église d’Angleterre. Dans le royaume himalayen du Bhoutan, la constitution proclame que le Bouddhisme est l’«héritage spirituel» de la nation. La deuxième partie de la constitution grecque déclare que «la religion dominante en Grèce est celle de l’Église orthodoxe orientale du Christ».
Pourquoi, donc, ce faux refus de principe de reconnaître Israël comme un État juif? Peut-être parce que l’OLP nourrit toujours l’intention d’éliminer Israël en tant qu’État juif, justement.
Je dis bien «éliminer» et non détruire. Oui, jusqu’à présent, l’antisionisme a essentiellement revêtu une forme militaire, du «jetez les Juifs à la mer» de Gamal Abdel Nasser à l’«Israël doit être rayé de la carte» de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mais la puissance des Forces de défense israéliennes a poussé l’antisionisme vers une démarche plus subtile, qui consiste à accepter un État israélien puis à en démanteler le caractère juif. Les antisionistes envisagent plusieurs moyens d’y parvenir:
Démographie. Les Palestiniens pourraient submerger la population juive d’Israël, un objectif signalé par leur exigence d’un «droit au retour» et par leur «guerre des ventres».
Politique. Les citoyens arabes d’Israël rejettent toujours davantage la nature juive du pays et exigent qu’il devienne un État binational.
Terreur. Les quelque 100 attentats palestiniens hebdomadaires perpétrés entre septembre 2000 et septembre 2005 visaient à susciter le déclin économique, l’émigration et l’apaisement.
Isolation. Toutes ces résolutions des Nations Unies, ces condamnations dans la presse et ces attaques sur les campus sont destinées à miner l’esprit sioniste.
La reconnaissance par les Arabes de la nature juive d’Israël doit revêtir une priorité diplomatique maximale. Les négociations devraient être stoppées et gelées jusqu’à que les Palestiniens acceptent formellement le sionisme puis mettent un terme à toutes leurs stratégies visant à éliminer Israël. D’ici là, il n’y a rien à discuter.
Olmert annonça le 11 novembre que si les Palestiniens ne reconnaissaient pas Israël comme «un État juif», les discussions d’Annapolis seraient stoppées. «Je n’ai pas l’intention de transiger d’une quelconque manière sur la question de l’État juif. Cela constituera une condition à notre reconnaissance d’un État palestinien.»
Il confirma cette position le lendemain, qualifiant la «reconnaissance d’Israël comme un État pour le peuple juif» de «point de départ à toutes les négociations. Nous n’entamerons aucun débat avec qui que ce soit sur le fait qu’Israël est un État pour le peuple juif.» Il releva aussi que les dirigeants palestiniens doivent «avoir la volonté de faire la paix avec Israël en tant qu’État Juif».
La mise en exergue de ce point a l’avantage d’attirer l’attention sur la question centrale du conflit israélo-arabe – le sionisme, le mouvement nationaliste juif, un aspect généralement ignoré dans le brouhaha des négociations. De fait, quasiment depuis la naissance de l’État, les pourparlers se sont concentrés sur la complexité de questions secondaires telles que les frontières, la disposition des troupes, le contrôle de l’armement et des armes, les lieux sacrés, les ressources naturelles, les droits d’établissement, la représentation diplomatique et les relations étrangères.
Les dirigeants palestiniens ont répliqué rapidement et sans équivoque à l’exigence d’Olmert:
Le Higher Arab Monitoring Committee de Nazareth décida à l’unanimité d’appeler l’Autorité palestinienne à ne pas reconnaître Israël comme un État juif.
Salam Fayad, le «premier ministre» de l’Autorité palestinienne: «Israël peut se définir comme il lui plaît, mais les Palestiniens ne le reconnaîtront pas comme État juif.»
Yasser Abed Rabbo, secrétaire général du comité exécutif de l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine: «Cette question n’est pas sur la table de négociation; elle est destinée à la consommation interne [israélienne].»
Ahmad Qurei, chef des négociateurs palestiniens: «Cette [exigence] est rejetée catégoriquement.»
Saeb Erekat, responsable des négociations de l’OLP: «Les Palestiniens ne reconnaîtront jamais l’identité juive d’Israël. (…) Il n’existe aucun pays dans le monde où les identités religieuse et nationale sont liées de cette manière.»
La généralisation d’Erekat est à la fois cureuse et révélatrice. Non seulement 56 États et l’OLP appartiennent à l’Organisation de la conférence islamique, mais la plupart d’entre eux, y compris l’OLP, font de la charia (la loi islamique) leur principale ou unique source de législation. L’Arabie Saoudite exige même que tous ses sujets soient musulmans.
En outre, le lien entre la religion et la nation n’est de loin pas l’apanage des pays musulmans. Comme le relève Jeff Jacoby, du Boston Globe, la loi argentine «charge le gouvernement de soutenir la foi catholique romaine. La reine Elizabeth II est le Gouverneur suprême de l’Église d’Angleterre. Dans le royaume himalayen du Bhoutan, la constitution proclame que le Bouddhisme est l’«héritage spirituel» de la nation. La deuxième partie de la constitution grecque déclare que «la religion dominante en Grèce est celle de l’Église orthodoxe orientale du Christ».
Pourquoi, donc, ce faux refus de principe de reconnaître Israël comme un État juif? Peut-être parce que l’OLP nourrit toujours l’intention d’éliminer Israël en tant qu’État juif, justement.
Je dis bien «éliminer» et non détruire. Oui, jusqu’à présent, l’antisionisme a essentiellement revêtu une forme militaire, du «jetez les Juifs à la mer» de Gamal Abdel Nasser à l’«Israël doit être rayé de la carte» de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mais la puissance des Forces de défense israéliennes a poussé l’antisionisme vers une démarche plus subtile, qui consiste à accepter un État israélien puis à en démanteler le caractère juif. Les antisionistes envisagent plusieurs moyens d’y parvenir:
Démographie. Les Palestiniens pourraient submerger la population juive d’Israël, un objectif signalé par leur exigence d’un «droit au retour» et par leur «guerre des ventres».
Politique. Les citoyens arabes d’Israël rejettent toujours davantage la nature juive du pays et exigent qu’il devienne un État binational.
Terreur. Les quelque 100 attentats palestiniens hebdomadaires perpétrés entre septembre 2000 et septembre 2005 visaient à susciter le déclin économique, l’émigration et l’apaisement.
Isolation. Toutes ces résolutions des Nations Unies, ces condamnations dans la presse et ces attaques sur les campus sont destinées à miner l’esprit sioniste.
La reconnaissance par les Arabes de la nature juive d’Israël doit revêtir une priorité diplomatique maximale. Les négociations devraient être stoppées et gelées jusqu’à que les Palestiniens acceptent formellement le sionisme puis mettent un terme à toutes leurs stratégies visant à éliminer Israël. D’ici là, il n’y a rien à discuter.
Monday, 26 November 2007
Remarques explicatives :
La première colonne indique le nom des pays classés selon leur rang en 2006.
Les trois colonnes suivantes montrent la position et l’indice de persécution sur les trois dernières années, ce qui permet de comparer les évolutions des situations dans les différents pays.
La liste correspond à l’analyse de la situation des Chrétiens dans le monde pour l’année précédente.
1. Corée du Nord : République communiste indépendante depuis 1948. Régime socialiste à parti unique inspiré du modèle soviétique.
2. Arabie Saoudite : L’islam est la religion d’État en Arabie saoudite et l’exercice d’un autre culte que l’islam est interdit.
3. Iran : L’islam chiite duodécimain est la religion officielle d’Iran à laquelle 90% de la population appartient.
4. Somalie : La religion principale est l’islam sunnite.
5. Maldives : L’islam est la seule religion légale et admise.
Etc. …
Et qui est-ce qu’on entend continuellement se plaindre quant au comportement «incorrect» des Occidentaux à leur égard ? Toujours les musulmans.
La première colonne indique le nom des pays classés selon leur rang en 2006.
Les trois colonnes suivantes montrent la position et l’indice de persécution sur les trois dernières années, ce qui permet de comparer les évolutions des situations dans les différents pays.
La liste correspond à l’analyse de la situation des Chrétiens dans le monde pour l’année précédente.
1. Corée du Nord : République communiste indépendante depuis 1948. Régime socialiste à parti unique inspiré du modèle soviétique.
2. Arabie Saoudite : L’islam est la religion d’État en Arabie saoudite et l’exercice d’un autre culte que l’islam est interdit.
3. Iran : L’islam chiite duodécimain est la religion officielle d’Iran à laquelle 90% de la population appartient.
4. Somalie : La religion principale est l’islam sunnite.
5. Maldives : L’islam est la seule religion légale et admise.
Etc. …
Et qui est-ce qu’on entend continuellement se plaindre quant au comportement «incorrect» des Occidentaux à leur égard ? Toujours les musulmans.
Partex en toute "Halalite"
Décidément, le marché du halal, ou estampillé comme tel, est en pleine expansion. Les citoyens du monde de confession musulmane seront, semble-t-il, de plus en plus sollicités, assaillis, par la publicité ciblée et labellisé 100% licite. IPod "islamique", voiture "islamique", sonneries téléphoniques "islamiques", après les nouvelles technologies et les marchés porteurs, le marché de l'islamiquement correct entend s'étendre au tourisme.
Derniers développements
A partir de lundi 12 novembre et jusqu'à ce jour 15 novembre 2007, se tient à Londres le World Travel Market (WTM), salon international et annuel dédié à l'industrie du tourisme mondial. "Il constitue, pour les acteurs de l'industrie mondiale du tourisme, une occasion unique de se retrouver, de constituer un réseau de connaissances, de négocier, de conclure des contrats et de se tenir parfaitement informés des tout derniers développements de leur industrie" souligne le site de la manifestation.
Justement, les "tout derniers développements" présentés lundi à l'occasion du WTM concernent entre autres le tourisme "halal" que souhaitent développer les pays du Moyen-Orient.
Selon Fiona Jeffery, président du World Travel Market, "en dépit de besoins très distincts, le secteur touristique du Moyen-Orient cible les musulmans et les non-musulmans de la même manière", or "cela représente un potentiel important pour le développement d'un tourisme halal, qu'on peut définir comme une forme de tourisme religieux conforme aux lois islamiques".
Tourisme halal
Logo du World Travel Market (WTM) Précisément, à l'occasion du WTM, une étude a été publiée par le cabinet Euromonitor International (voir lien ci-dessous) attire l'attention sur le fait qu'"il est important que le tourisme halal se développe parallèlement aux infrastructures existante pour le tourisme intérieur, promeuvant ainsi des produits et services adaptés qui attireraient de nouveaux touristes au Moyen-Orient. Cela aurait une grande portée auprès d'éventuels visiteurs au-delà des frontières du Moyen-Orient, en particulier auprès des populations musulmanes croissantes à travers le monde, depuis l'Europe jusqu'aux Etats-Unis."
"Le package constitué du Hadj [grand pèlerinage, ndlr] et de la Umrah [petit pèlerinage, ndlr] et visant les pèlerins offre un potentiel pour les produits touristiques et les services halal. Cette niche commerciale offrant une grande inélasticité de la demande et démontre une résilience du religieux puisque les touristes s'y rendent pour leur foi, même en période de l'insécurité", poursuit le rapport.
Compagnie halal
Ainsi pourrait voir le jour dans les prochaines années une compagnie aérienne entièrement "halal", servant des menus conforme aux exigences de l'islam et bannissant tout alcool, projetant des films religieux, incluant des cabines séparées pour femmes et pour hommes pour les clients le désirant et diffusant les appels à la prière, prévoit le rapport d'Euromonitor International.
Toujours selon cette étude, le nombre de touristes en partance pour le Moyen-Orient devrait augmenter de 66% en 2011, atteignant près de 55 millions de visiteurs annuels. S'agissant des recettes générées par le tourisme, elles devraient quant à elles grimper de 108% en 2011, atteignant 51 milliards de dollars.
"Une autre initiative à explorer sont les hôtels entièrement féminins, comme en Arabie Saoudite, qui permettent aux femmes de surmonter l'interdiction de réserver une chambre sans être accompagnées de leur époux", a encore précisé Fiona Jeffery.
Disorder syndrome.
25/11/07 A small diversion,
When you are a teenage girl, and you suddenly develop an eating disorder and it is expected to disappear.
Then it doesn’t and you feel quite stressed, and think this is adding to it.
You try everything, not eating,thinking different thoughts, living habits, and not one person comes up with the solution.
Try this because the doctor never says it, and no amount of advertising,shop-sellers or false prophet doctors say it.
Sudden eating disorders/symptoms can also be the result of a course of anti-biotics and the same cure applies.
Try deciphering what metals your body needs and you may well find that it is the lack of a certain metal present needed to keep a healthy metabolism and reduced your immune system to leave you feeling unhealthy.
You may suddenly bloat, and feel unbalanced, unnatural, lethargic and unhappy as a result of this metal deficiency.
It’s an easy step to buy some natural metallise supplements(usually pill form) to boost your natural immune system again. The main ones are inexpensive and available on the shelf in most superstores.
Follow the link, to check out which symptoms suit you and which natural pills to take to cure it.
It has been said that Leaky Gut Syndrome affects millions of people worldwide. Leaky Gut Syndrome is a chronic debilitating condition that often goes undiagnosed by the mainstream medical profession, as many doctors do not provide testing for leaky gut (increased intestinal permeability) or acknowledge that the condition exists. Many people are not even aware that they are suffering from a 'leaky gut'.
Food intolerance
When you are a teenage girl, and you suddenly develop an eating disorder and it is expected to disappear.
Then it doesn’t and you feel quite stressed, and think this is adding to it.
You try everything, not eating,thinking different thoughts, living habits, and not one person comes up with the solution.
Try this because the doctor never says it, and no amount of advertising,shop-sellers or false prophet doctors say it.
Sudden eating disorders/symptoms can also be the result of a course of anti-biotics and the same cure applies.
Try deciphering what metals your body needs and you may well find that it is the lack of a certain metal present needed to keep a healthy metabolism and reduced your immune system to leave you feeling unhealthy.
You may suddenly bloat, and feel unbalanced, unnatural, lethargic and unhappy as a result of this metal deficiency.
It’s an easy step to buy some natural metallise supplements(usually pill form) to boost your natural immune system again. The main ones are inexpensive and available on the shelf in most superstores.
Follow the link, to check out which symptoms suit you and which natural pills to take to cure it.
It has been said that Leaky Gut Syndrome affects millions of people worldwide. Leaky Gut Syndrome is a chronic debilitating condition that often goes undiagnosed by the mainstream medical profession, as many doctors do not provide testing for leaky gut (increased intestinal permeability) or acknowledge that the condition exists. Many people are not even aware that they are suffering from a 'leaky gut'.
Food intolerance
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Dialogue de "Civilisations" a Libye
Libye/ISESCO : lors de la deuxième journée de la cinquième Conférence tenue à Tripoli, les ministres de la culture du monde islamique passent en revue les efforts de l’ISESCO en matière de dialogue et de diversité culturelle
Tripoli (Libye),12 Dhul Qadah/22 (IINA)-
Le Directeur général de l’Organisation islamique pour l’Education, les Sciences et la Culture (ISESCO), Dr Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, a soumis à la Conférence islamique des ministres de la culture qui poursuit ses réunions dans la capitale libyenne Tripoli, un rapport sur les efforts de l’ISESCO dans les domaines suivants: le dialogue entre les cultures, la diversité culturelle et la réaction aux campagnes de dénigrement médiatique menées contre l’islam et les musulmans. Il a précisé que ces domaines sont étroitement liés et reflètent l’action stratégique accomplie par l’organisation.
Et de poursuivre en expliquant que depuis la proclamation de l’année 2001, année des Nations Unies pour le dialogue entre les civilisations, le dialogue des cultures est devenu un moyen d’instaurer la paix et de coopérer entre les peuples et les civilisations.
Dans ce sens, il a ajouté que la diversité culturelle est devenue une référence pour l’action internationale, suite à la signature d’une convention internationale sur la protection de la diversité culturelle en octobre 2005 et l’émission par la 4ème session de cette Conférence de la Déclaration islamique sur la Diversité culturelle.
Le Directeur général de l'ISESCO a par ailleurs déclaré s'attendre à ce que l'Union Européenne déclare, sous peu, l'année 2008 comme étant l'année européenne du dialogue des civilisations. Il a indiqué que les Etats du monde islamique sont conscients de cette dynamique de changement et qu'ils y ont apporté leur contribution à travers l'alliance des civilisations. Mais, pour que cette alliance puisse se concrétiser sur le terrain, il a fallu s'atteler à observer toutes les atteintes à l'image de l'islam et des musulmans et à y riposter à travers l'approche fixée par le programme d'action de l'ISESCO pour la réaction aux campagnes de dénigrement médiatique menées contre l'islam et les Musulmans.
Cette action assidue, a-t-il précisé, a porté ses fruits puisque la conférence de l'Organisation pour la Sécurité et la Coopération en Europe (OSCE), tenue récemment à Cordoue, a émis des résolutions sur l'intolérance et la discrimination pratiquées envers les Musulmans. De même, le Congrès américain a adopté une résolution dans laquelle il considère l'islam comme l'une des grandes religions du monde et a exprimé son amitié et son appui aux musulmans et son rejet de la haine, du fanatisme et de la violence dirigés contre eux.
Il a ajouté que l'ISESCO s'est penchée davantage sur les questions de dialogue et d'alliance des civilisations et œuvré pour en diversifier les acteurs afin d’atteindre les objectifs escomptés. De même, elle a œuvré pour promouvoir la Déclaration islamique sur la Diversité culturelle et pour ancrer le respect des spécificités culturelles et a intensifié ses efforts pour le suivi et la riposte aux atteintes visant à ternir l'image de la religion et de la civilisation islamiques.
A l’issue de longs débats, la Conférence a adopté ce Rapport à l’unanimité.
“Dialogue des civilisations”, alors que dans tout l’article, il n’est question que de la défense de l’islam sans tenir compte une seule fois de la persecution des chretians en terres Musulmans.
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Le flots de migrants persiste.
La fermeture du centre d'accueil de réfugiés de Sangatte (Pas-de-Calais), en décembre 2002, devait mettre fin à l'afflux des clandestins. Cinq ans après, les réfugiés venus du Kurdistan irakien, d'Afghanistan et désormais aussi d'Afrique continuent d'affluer dans la région dans l'espoir d'atteindre l'hypothétique eldorado britannique. Rien n'interrompt le flux : ni les arrestations musclées, ni la destruction des abris, ni le marquage à l'encre indélébile au dos de leurs mains. Selon les associations et la municipalité, 300 à 350 errent toujours dans les rues de Calais.
De plus en plus jeune - sur les seuls dix premiers mois de l'année, la Maison de la solidarité de Calais a enregistré 2 250 mineurs, soit déjà quatre fois plus qu'en 2006 -, la population des migrants s'étend même aujourd'hui sur le littoral. Comme il devient de plus en plus difficile de passer le tunnel, ils se rabattent sur Dunkerque et Cherbourg.
Depuis cinq ans, la gendarmerie et la police aux frontières (PAF) dont les effectifs ont été renforcés multiplient les opérations de contrôle. Tombé de 97 600 en 2002 à 17 600, le nombre d'interpellations dans le Pas-de-Calais est reparti à la hausse en 2004, atteignant 23 445 en 2006. Mais ces opérations sont autant de coups d'épée dans l'eau. Nombre d'étrangers interpellés ne sont, de droit ou de fait, pas reconductibles à la frontière. La plupart sont relâchés au bout de vingt-quatre heures, une injonction à quitter le territoire en main. Et même lorsqu'ils sont acheminés, par bus, vers un centre d'accueil pour demandeurs d'asile ou un centre d'hébergement et de réinsertion sociale, ils n'y restent pas - étant en transit vers l'Angleterre -, et se retrouvent à nouveau dehors.
"Sur le fond rien n'a changé, mais personne n'a encore bougé." Bernard Barron, proche collaborateur du maire de Calais, Jacky Henin, ne décolère pas. "C'est à l'Europe de trouver une solution, et à la Grande-Bretagne, en particulier, qui leur fait miroiter un eldorado !"
Un ennemi intelligent est préférable a un ennemi sot.
Allah les bleus!
Le Stade de France était plein, il faisait froid mais beau, les équipes n'ont pas mal joué, le score final, deux partout, a de quoi satisfaire tout le monde. Le match amical France-Maroc du 16 novembre aurait pu rechauffer le coeur de tous les footeux. Il aura au contraire laissé trainer un déplaisant fumet et donné à quelques observateurs des fourmis dans les pieds, non pas dans le ballon, mais plutôt dans les arrière-trains.
Peu importe que le stade ait été tout entier aux couleurs rouge et vert du drapeau marocain. L'équipe de France avait simplement l'impression à Casablanca. Elle en a vu d'autres. Pas de quoi faire une histoire parceque "La Marseillaise", chantée par une chorale de gamins, a été copieusement sifflée. Cela prouve seulement la grande capacité dissuasive de la nouvelle loi qui punit de 6 mois de prison de telles manifestations. Il est permis de se désoler du chauvinisme furieux d'un public de Marocains venu de toute la France pour encourager son équipe préférée et siffler l'adversaire. mais ce spectacle est jusque-là d'une affligeante banalité.
En revanche, on change de registre lorsque les joueurs de l'équipe de France sont sélectivement hués selon leur origine et même selon leur préférence religieuse supposée. Les vociférations se faisaient particulièrement vigoureuses lorsqu'un joueur comme Thuram touchait le ballon. Mais ont échappé au contraire à la bronca les présumés musulmans comme benzema, Ben Arfa ou Nasri. Tout comme Ribery ou Anelka, parait il convertis à l'islam...
Les gazettes ont été d'une discrétion de violette sur ces débordements. Comme si ce racisme là était plus délicat à dénoncer - et à sanctionner - que les cris de singe entendus dans certaines tribunes pour saluer les joueurs africains. Le nouveau secrétaire d'état aux sports, Bernard Laporte, qui a assisté au match, n'a rien remarqué. Questionné par "L'Equipe" à propos des sifflets pendant "La Marseillaise", il a répondu qu'il était arrivé en retard: "Je n'étais pas là."
Le reste du spectacle a dû lui plaire. De toute façon, il comprend encore moins le foot que le rugby.
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
Jews and Christians scorn an Islamic Algeria.
Après l’indépendance de l’Algérie, les responsables politiques ont fait interdire l’entretien de ses cimetières et autres lieus de cultes. Mais la population Algérienne n’en est pas moins coupable, allant même jusqu’à considérer parfois ces lieus comme la demeure du diable. -> À voir aussi la désacralisation du cimetière de Mers-el-Kébir.
What will happen to Journalism?
Mardi 20 novembre 2007
Journaliste d'investigation, créateur du Bureau de reportage et de recherche d'informations (BRRI), ancien rédacteur en chef de La Liberté, Roger de Diesbach publie un livre passionné et mélancolique sur son métier, Presse futile, presse inutile (Ed. Slatkine). Au fil des enquêtes qui, menées par lui ou par d'autres, ont marqué les trente dernières années, il évoque les convictions, les tâtonnements et les doutes d'une pratique qui, pense-t-il, se perd: l'enquête journalistique. Le journalisme futile, dominé par le marketing et la complaisance envers les spécialistes toujours plus nombreux de la communication, est-il en voie de remplacer ce journalisme utile? Débat avec Peter Rothenbühler, rédacteur en chef du Matin.
Le Temps: Y a-t-il aujourd'hui une crise du journalisme?
Peter Rothenbühler (P.R.): Oui, mais c'est une crise bénéfique. Le métier ronronnait et se résignait: on pensait que les jeunes, attirés avant tout par les médias audiovisuels et Internet, étaient perdus pour la presse écrite. Mais, aujourd'hui, nous constatons un renouveau rapide et brutal: les gratuits ont permis de recruter 500000 nouveaux jeunes lecteurs. Et ce ne sont pas des illettrés: leur profil socioprofessionnel est le même que celui des lecteurs de la presse de qualité. Bien sûr, c'est une évolution qui fait peur aux journaux installés: certains paniquent, parlent de décadence. Cela nous oblige à nous remettre en question, oui. Mais c'est une opportunité.
Roger de Diesbach (R.de D.): Je conteste absolument l'idée d'une crise bénéfique. Je vois le contraire: ma génération de journalistes a dû se battre contre l'inféodation des journaux aux partis politiques et aux groupes idéologiques, conquérir le droit de rechercher les faits, tous les faits sur tous les sujets. Cela n'a pas été simple: l'investigation était souvent confondue avec une mise en cause de la société. C'était le fameux: «Allez voir à Moscou si c'est mieux.» Mais nous y sommes arrivés. Et aujourd'hui, sous la pression de la crise publicitaire, cette liberté durement conquise est bradée. Des éditeurs - pas tous - pensent sauver leurs revenus en remplaçant la presse qui informe par une presse gadget. On a passé d'un maître idéologique à un maître financier.
P. R.: C'est faux: jamais la presse n'a été aussi indépendante des annonceurs. Les grands éditeurs n'exercent aucune pression sur leurs rédactions et la situation de leurs journaux est bien meilleure à cet égard que celle des anciennes feuilles locales, plus dépendantes du milieu qui les entourait.
R. de D.: Vous oubliez la pression économique qui s'exerce sur les rédactions: les journalistes sont moins nombreux, débordés par l'agenda, ils n'ont plus le temps nécessaire pour faire des enquêtes. C'est grave: si la presse cesse de remplir son rôle de préposé de la transparence démocratique, elle risque de disparaître.
P. R.: Il est faux, d'abord, de penser qu'un journalisme accessible, construit à partir de phrases simples et d'articles courts est un journalisme au rabais. Il demande au contraire plus de forces. Ensuite, l'investigation ne disparaît pas. Elle se concentre dans les hebdomadaires, surtout les journaux du dimanche. Il est exact que les gratuits ne font pas d'investigation: ils présentent les informations diffusées par l'Agence télégraphique suisse de façon attractive et les lecteurs apprécient la neutralité de leur approche. Mais ils font de plus en plus d'enquêtes «maison», et des plus intéressantes. Et Le Matin semaine, par exemple, publie plusieurs enquêtes par jour.
Le Temps: Les difficultés de l'investigation sont pourtant reconnues. Même les grands quotidiens américains disent qu'ils n'ont plus les moyens de faire les enquêtes qu'ils réalisaient naguère. Pour répondre à cette situation, certains évoquent la possibilité de faire financer les enquêtes à fonds perdu, par le biais par exemple de fondations comme celles qui, aux Etats-Unis, financent la recherche médicale dans les domaines où elle n'est pas rentable. Qu'en pensez-vous?
P.R.: Je me méfie de ces fondations qui sont souvent des relais des gouvernements. Le risque d'en revenir à une presse qui sert d'écho à la vérité officielle est trop grand.
R. de D.: Le risque opposé me paraît nettement plus réel: une presse qui ne songe qu'à vendre et qui abandonne sa mission d'intérêt public.
P.R.: C'est ce qui nous divise. Vous confondez les médias avec un service public, dépendant de l'Etat, ce qu'ils ne sont absolument pas et ne doivent pas être!
R.de D.: Je parle d'intérêt public, pas de service public, ce n'est pas la même chose!
P.R.: L'idée que le journalisme devrait se limiter aux sujets d'intérêt public est parfaitement irréaliste. Il ne le fait pas et ne l'a jamais fait. Au Matin, nous préférons nous concentrer sur l'intérêt du public, donc du lecteur. Qui est varié. Il touche des sujets qui relèvent aussi du divertissement, comme le sport, la mode, les people. Et aussi, bien sûr, des sujets politiques: le public est intéressé, par exemple, à savoir s'il touchera sa rente AVS. Pour établir un bon mix, je fais volontiers la comparaison avec les sujets qui surgissent à la table de famille. On y parle parfois de politique. Mais pas tout le temps.
R. de D.: Pour moi, un bon journal populaire n'est pas celui qui amuse le public mais celui qui rend les sujets d'intérêt public accessibles à tout le monde. C'est possible si l'on ne s'en tient pas aux décisions politiques mais si on enquête sur leurs applications concrètes. Les trois pages que Le Matin a consacrées récemment aux sacs Vuitton, pour moi, ne remplissent pas cette fonction. Je ne crois même pas qu'elles répondent à l'intérêt des lecteurs. Je crois que vous confondez ce dernier avec l'intérêt de vos annonceurs.
P. R.: Absolument pas. Vuitton n'est pas un annonceur du Matin. C'est un phénomène qui intéresse les gens. Je préfère un journalisme à l'écoute du public, qui se laisse surprendre, à un journalisme donneur de leçons. Regardez ce qui vient de se passer avec la campagne électorale: tous les journaux romands ont dit que l'UDC arrivait au terme de sa progression, tous ont décrié ses méthodes et tous se sont trompés.
R. de D.: Ce qui s'est passé, c'est surtout que l'UDC a un fantastique service de marketing, ultra-professionnel, qui a su jouer à fond la carte de la provocation et de la victimisation. C'est vrai que les médias se sont laissé manipuler. Mais les partis sont aussi tombés dans le piège et ont relayé le discours de l'UDC, ce qui a fait son jeu.
P. R.: Les journalistes se sont aussi laissé aveugler par leurs préjugés. Ils n'ont pas vu que l'UDC, désormais, ne représente pas seulement des paysans qui ont peur de la mondialisation mais aussi des jeunes urbains éduqués qui en ont assez de la langue de bois des médias. Ces derniers ont tendance à exagérer leur puissance. Ce qui est puissant, ce ne sont pas les opinions des journalistes, c'est la vérité.
R. de D.: Là, je suis entièrement d'accord. Et, dans cette affaire, on n'a pas cherché la vérité. Qui, par exemple, a enquêté sur le financement de la campagne de l'UDC?
P. R.: Les journalistes bien-pensants n'ont pas le monopole des enquêtes. La Weltwoche, par exemple, a enquêté de façon très longue et très approfondie sur les abus de l'aide sociale à Zurich et cela a sans doute pesé sur la campagne, même si la Weltwoche n'a pas fait à elle toute seule le succès de l'UDC.
Le Temps: On peut se demander si le journalisme n'est pas surtout ébranlé par la perte de son monopole sur l'information. Désormais, cette dernière est accessible partout sur Internet, à travers les blogs, les sites des entreprises, des «think tanks» et des instituts de recherche... Il y a de quoi avoir le vertige.
P. R.: Il y a une grosse confusion autour des blogs. Ils ne remplaceront jamais la presse. Les utilisateurs continueront d'avoir besoin de vrais rédacteurs, de quelqu'un qui choisit pour eux, qui trie et hiérarchise l'information en fonction de leurs besoins.
R. de D.: Mais en suivant le seul intérêt des lecteurs vous faites justement le contraire. Vous ne hiérarchisez plus rien.
P. R.: Mais non. Nous hiérarchisons même plus que d'autres, mais en fonction des besoins de notre lectorat qui n'est pas celui d'un autre journal. Cette fonction ne disparaîtra pas: les gens veulent un partenaire incorruptible qui leur fasse leur menu.
R. de D.: Si le journalisme perd sa fonction critique, le risque est bien réel que le public se détourne pour aller chercher sur Internet ce qu'il ne trouve plus dans la presse. La montée en puissance des agences de communication rend le travail des journalistes encore plus difficile et plus indispensable. Avant, on voyait un fil pendre au plafond du Département militaire fédéral, on tirait sur le fil et le plafond s'effondrait. Aujourd'hui, il y a à tous les niveaux des gens qui ont pour métier de diffuser des messages, d'imposer leur vision des choses et d'orienter celle des journaux. Rester indépendant et critique nécessite beaucoup plus d'énergie.
P. R.: Jamais l'accès à l'information n'a été aussi facile qu'aujourd'hui. On ne peut plus rien cacher. Partout, il y a des citoyens disposés à alerter la presse sur ce qui se passe autour d'eux. Une armée comme la P26, aujourd'hui, ne resterait jamais secrète.
R. de D.: Je n'en suis pas si sûr.
Le Temps: La seule logique économique mène toutefois à des paradoxes. Prenez le journalisme scientifique: c'est devenu un luxe que pratiquement plus aucun journal ne peut se payer. Pourtant, tout le monde s'accorde pour dire que l'information scientifique est plus nécessaire que jamais...
P.R.: Il y a des mutations, c'est un fait. Tous les secteurs connaissent des mutations, je ne vois pas pourquoi la presse serait seule épargnée. Elle l'est d'ailleurs en partie, par la langue et par le besoin d'information locale. Mais quels que soient les changements, on aura toujours besoin de journalistes sachant bien raconter une histoire.
Il y aura encore des concentrations, ce n'est pas un drame: il vaut mieux moins de journaux, plus solides économiquement et mieux dotés, que beaucoup de titres qui survivent tout juste.
R. de D.: Ce n'est pas la concentration en soi qui m'effraie. Mais le fait que de plus en plus souvent, les journaux tombent dans les mains de personnes qui n'ont plus aucun intérêt pour l'information, qui sont des marchands de canons ou de béton et qui ne veulent que maximiser leur profit.
P. R.: Là, je suis d'accord. Je pense qu'il est important que les journaux restent dans les mains d'éditeurs spécialisés et ne dépendent pas, par exemple, d'actionnaires soucieux de valoriser absolument leurs placements. Aujourd'hui, en Suisse, la question est de savoir si la concentration se fera entre éditeurs nationaux ou si elle passera par des absorptions de la part d'éditeurs étrangers. J'espère fermement que la première solution prévaudra. Pour cela, il faut que la Comco se rende compte qu'à trop brider les grands éditeurs suisses elle fait le lit de groupes étrangers encore plus puissants contre lesquels elle ne pourra rien.
Monday, 19 November 2007
Muslims destroy churches
Le 13 novembre dernier, plusieurs fonctionnaires du gouvernement turc ont entrepris de détruire le monastère orthodoxe du Christ Saint-Sauveur, dans les Iles des Princes. Un communiqué de l’Ordre de Saint-André, dont les membres, nommés archontes du patriarcat œcuménique, et qui a son siège à New York, révèle qu’« en réponse à la destruction illégale d’une église [...]
Saturday, 18 August 2007
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Monnet's Conception
The Conservatives succeeded Labour and Churchill replaced Atlee in 1951,there were hopes this party might be more "Europe-minded". But they were no more enthusiastic towards integration. The Churchill government would give its support to Europe but there was no question of Britain taking an active part. Chairman of the Council of Europe,Spaak accessed the Assembly would have to "do without Britain's support in order to make any headway". The third bid for a supranational government was successful.
Monnet believed something "more practical and ambitious" was needed to achieve the desired goal, and an opportunity came in 1950. West Germany had emerged finally as a self-government of Chancellorship. Under its Basic Law passed on 8 May 1949, the new Federal Democratic Republic or FDR, was based on a federation of the eleven highly decentralised Land governments guaranteed by a constitutional court. All international treaties had to be ratified by the Lander through their legislative assembly,the Bundesrat. The largest and most powerful Land, Bavaria, had actually voted against the new constitution, for not reserving even greater power to the Lander.
Economically by this time, the new Germany, under the guidance of Ludwig Erhard, was already showing signs of a remarkable recovery. This raised the question of how the new nation should be assimilated into the western European community. At the Council of Europe in August 1949 Churchill had shocked many delegates by proposing that she should be given the warmest of welcomes. Two of the western occupying powers, the USA and Britain, wanted to see her continue on the road towards full economic recovery and nationhood as soon as possible. But this had provoked a deep rift with France, which wanted to continue exercising control over the German economy, for fear that she might once again become too strong a political and economic rival.
The argument centred on the bone of contention, the coal and steel industries of the Ruhr,heartland of Germany's economy and formerly the arsenal of her war machine. In 1948, France had demanded the setting up of an International Ruhr Authority, which would enable French officials to control Germany's coal and steel production and ensure that a substantial part of that production was diverted to aid French reconstruction. It was a curious echo of France's policy after the First World War. Naturally a new West Germany was bitterly opposed to such an authority. Equally so were the other two occupying powers, America and Britain.
For over two years this dispute had festered, without resolution. But in the spring of 1950 the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson finally lost patience. He issued France with what amounted to an ultimatum. On 11 May there would be a foreign ministers' meeting in London; and unless the French could offer a satisfactory compromise proposal, the USA would impose a solution on all parties.
This gave Monnet the opportunity for which he had been waiting. For years he had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe", beginning by integrating the coal and steel industries, and setting up a supranational authority to run them. This was the idea first put forward in the 1920s, by Coudenhove and Loucheur, and partly implemented by Mayrisch in 1926. It was the idea Monnet himself had outlined to Spaak in 1941 and in his Algiers memorandum in 1943. But what Monnet had in mind was that the coal and steel industries, not just of France and Germany but of other western European countries, should be placed under the direction of a supranational authority: just as over dinner in Paris in 1917 he and Salter had come up with a similar plan for the control of allied shipping.
When Monnet came to put his plan to paper at the end of April,allegedly after two weeks' strenuous walking in the Swiss Alps, he was obviously troubled by how much he dare reveal of its real underlying purpose. Before getting to its final stage, it went through nine separate drafts. In the first, the pooling of coal and steel was regarded as "the first step of a Franco-German Union and a European federation". By the fifth draft, this had been changed to "Europe must be organised on a federal basis. . But , by the final draft, almost all of this was missing. All he would allow himself was a reference to the pool being the "first step of a European federation",a vague term which could mean different things to different people.
Monnet had in mind the creation of a European entity with allthe attributes of a state, the anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.
Monnet believed something "more practical and ambitious" was needed to achieve the desired goal, and an opportunity came in 1950. West Germany had emerged finally as a self-government of Chancellorship. Under its Basic Law passed on 8 May 1949, the new Federal Democratic Republic or FDR, was based on a federation of the eleven highly decentralised Land governments guaranteed by a constitutional court. All international treaties had to be ratified by the Lander through their legislative assembly,the Bundesrat. The largest and most powerful Land, Bavaria, had actually voted against the new constitution, for not reserving even greater power to the Lander.
Economically by this time, the new Germany, under the guidance of Ludwig Erhard, was already showing signs of a remarkable recovery. This raised the question of how the new nation should be assimilated into the western European community. At the Council of Europe in August 1949 Churchill had shocked many delegates by proposing that she should be given the warmest of welcomes. Two of the western occupying powers, the USA and Britain, wanted to see her continue on the road towards full economic recovery and nationhood as soon as possible. But this had provoked a deep rift with France, which wanted to continue exercising control over the German economy, for fear that she might once again become too strong a political and economic rival.
The argument centred on the bone of contention, the coal and steel industries of the Ruhr,heartland of Germany's economy and formerly the arsenal of her war machine. In 1948, France had demanded the setting up of an International Ruhr Authority, which would enable French officials to control Germany's coal and steel production and ensure that a substantial part of that production was diverted to aid French reconstruction. It was a curious echo of France's policy after the First World War. Naturally a new West Germany was bitterly opposed to such an authority. Equally so were the other two occupying powers, America and Britain.
For over two years this dispute had festered, without resolution. But in the spring of 1950 the US Secretary of State Dean Acheson finally lost patience. He issued France with what amounted to an ultimatum. On 11 May there would be a foreign ministers' meeting in London; and unless the French could offer a satisfactory compromise proposal, the USA would impose a solution on all parties.
This gave Monnet the opportunity for which he had been waiting. For years he had dreamed of building a "United States of Europe", beginning by integrating the coal and steel industries, and setting up a supranational authority to run them. This was the idea first put forward in the 1920s, by Coudenhove and Loucheur, and partly implemented by Mayrisch in 1926. It was the idea Monnet himself had outlined to Spaak in 1941 and in his Algiers memorandum in 1943. But what Monnet had in mind was that the coal and steel industries, not just of France and Germany but of other western European countries, should be placed under the direction of a supranational authority: just as over dinner in Paris in 1917 he and Salter had come up with a similar plan for the control of allied shipping.
When Monnet came to put his plan to paper at the end of April,allegedly after two weeks' strenuous walking in the Swiss Alps, he was obviously troubled by how much he dare reveal of its real underlying purpose. Before getting to its final stage, it went through nine separate drafts. In the first, the pooling of coal and steel was regarded as "the first step of a Franco-German Union and a European federation". By the fifth draft, this had been changed to "Europe must be organised on a federal basis. . But , by the final draft, almost all of this was missing. All he would allow himself was a reference to the pool being the "first step of a European federation",a vague term which could mean different things to different people.
Monnet had in mind the creation of a European entity with allthe attributes of a state, the anodyne phrasing was deliberately chosen with a view to making it difficult to dilute by converting it into just another intergovernmental body. It was also couched in this fashion so it would not scare off national governments by emphasising that its purpose was to override their sovereignty.
Friday, 1 June 2007
Communism in Czechoslovakia
Primarily US interest in the European arena was triggered by fear of Communist take-overs in Italy and France, where Communists were briefly the largest single party in the Assembly. A severe winter of 1946-1947 had caused economic dislocation that undermined a post-war optimism about the potential for recovery of western Europe's economies. Serious concern arose in Washington about the ambitions of Communism in Europe.
However, the first country to enter economic crisis was Britain: over-stretched by huge military commitments.
The US abrupted the "lend lease" war loan agreement in 1945 after the Japanese war came to an end. The US had loaned Britain $48.5 billion. Britain's adverse trade balance soared. On 27 February 1947 Britain informed Washington she could no longer afford sending financial aid to the governments of Greece and Turkey(in addition to her substantial military commitment to Palestine,where the British mandate was coming under severe pressure from the campaign by Jewish nationalists and terrorist groups to set up a state of Israel).
Crisis meetings were staged between members of Congress and State Department officials. The possibility of a Communist take-over in both Greece and Turkey might manifest the spread of Communism to Iran and India.
Truman announced a support package for military and economic assistance in Greece and Turkey. "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
This marked the beginning of America's cold war foreign policy and the point of relations between Communist "East" and non-Communist "West". Local Communist parties were making significant gains in Eastern Europe;Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia. It was clear Stalin was intending every country of central Europe into a Soviet Empire. The Marshall Plan (US Secretary of State) was an altruistic gesture by the US to help the impoverished Western allies but was also a gateway for the US to import strong commercial interests in a market of several hundred million persons.
US Congress at first were hostile to the plan but as Czechoslovakia was turned over to Communist control in 1948 resistance to the plan diminished.
The French found the Communist threat highly advantageous. Mendes-France commented: "The Communists are rendering us a great service. Because we have a "Communist danger", the Americans are making a tremendous effort to help us. We must keep up this indispensable Communist scare."
However, the first country to enter economic crisis was Britain: over-stretched by huge military commitments.
The US abrupted the "lend lease" war loan agreement in 1945 after the Japanese war came to an end. The US had loaned Britain $48.5 billion. Britain's adverse trade balance soared. On 27 February 1947 Britain informed Washington she could no longer afford sending financial aid to the governments of Greece and Turkey(in addition to her substantial military commitment to Palestine,where the British mandate was coming under severe pressure from the campaign by Jewish nationalists and terrorist groups to set up a state of Israel).
Crisis meetings were staged between members of Congress and State Department officials. The possibility of a Communist take-over in both Greece and Turkey might manifest the spread of Communism to Iran and India.
Truman announced a support package for military and economic assistance in Greece and Turkey. "It must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
This marked the beginning of America's cold war foreign policy and the point of relations between Communist "East" and non-Communist "West". Local Communist parties were making significant gains in Eastern Europe;Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia. It was clear Stalin was intending every country of central Europe into a Soviet Empire. The Marshall Plan (US Secretary of State) was an altruistic gesture by the US to help the impoverished Western allies but was also a gateway for the US to import strong commercial interests in a market of several hundred million persons.
US Congress at first were hostile to the plan but as Czechoslovakia was turned over to Communist control in 1948 resistance to the plan diminished.
The French found the Communist threat highly advantageous. Mendes-France commented: "The Communists are rendering us a great service. Because we have a "Communist danger", the Americans are making a tremendous effort to help us. We must keep up this indispensable Communist scare."
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Catholics and the Supra State
The European Union (EU) is a supranational and intergovernmental union of twenty-seven states and a political body. It was established in 1992 by the Treaty on European Union (The Maastricht Treaty), and is the de facto successor to the six-member European Economic Community founded in 1957. Since then new accessions have raised its number of member states, and competences have expanded.
The EU is one of the largest economic and political entities in the world, with a total population of 494 million and a combined nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of €11.6 (US$15.6) trillion in 2006.[1] The Union is a single market with a common trade policy,[2] a Common Agricultural/Fisheries Policy, and a Regional policy to assist underdeveloped regions.[3] It introduced a single currency, the euro, adopted by 13 member states. The EU initiated a limited Common Foreign and Security Policy, and a limited Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.
Important EU institutions and bodies include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament. Citizens of EU member states are also EU citizens: they directly elect the European Parliament, once every five years. They can invest, live, travel, and work in other member states (with some temporary restrictions on new member states[4]). Passport control and customs checks at most internal borders were abolished by the Schengen Agreement.
Europe is one of the seven traditional continents of the Earth. Physically and geologically, Europe is the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia, west of Asia. Europe is bounded to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea, to the southeast by the Caucasus Mountains and the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. To the east, Europe is generally divided from Asia by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, and by the Caspian Sea.
Europe is the world's second-smallest continent in terms of area, covering about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi) or 2.0% of the Earth's surface. The only continent smaller than Europe is Australia. In terms of population, it is the third-largest continent (after Asia and Africa) with a population of 710,000,000 or about 11% of the world's population. However, the term continent can refer to a cultural and political distinction or a physiographic one, leading to various perspectives about Europe's precise borders, area, and population. Russia is Europe's largest country by area and population. Europe is the birthplace of the European Union, a union of twenty-seven independent states based on the European Communities and founded to enhance political, economic and social co-operation and integration.
Pope Pius XII (Latin: Pius PP. XII), born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (March 2, 1876 – October 9, 1958), reigned as the 260th pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church and sovereign of Vatican City State, from March 2, 1939 until his death.
Before election to the papacy, Pacelli served as secretary of the Department of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, papal nuncio and cardinal secretary of state, in which roles he worked to conclude treaties with European nations, most notably the Reichskonkordat with Germany. After World War II, he was a vocal supporter of lenient policies toward vanquished nations and a staunch opponent of communism. His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust remains the subject of continued historical controversy.
One of the "Founding Fathers" of a Supranational Europe was Robert Schuman,a Luxembourg born ex Nazi prisoner and politician for France in 1948.
les of Nato's Article 5 were also repeated in the European Defence Community Treaty which failed as the French National Assembly declined to vote its ratification. Schuman was a proponent of an Atlantic Community. This was strongly resisted by Communists, ultranationalists and Gaullists.
Schuman later served as Minister of Justice and first President of the European Parliamentary Assembly which bestowed on him by acclamation the title 'Father of Europe'. In 1958 he received the Karlspreis, an Award by the German city of Aachen to people who contributed to the European idea and European peace, commemorating Charlemagne, ruler of what is today France and Germany, who resided and is buried at Aachen. He was also a knight of the Order of Pope Pius IX.
Celibate, modest and un-ostentatious, Schuman was an intensely religious man and Bible scholar. He was strongly influenced by the writings of Pope Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain. It was announced on 15 May 2004 that the diocesan investigation of the cause of beatification would soon conclude; this might have as its result that Schuman will be declared "Blessed" by the Roman Catholic Church.
Pius is one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility by issuing an apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, which defines ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. He also promulgated forty-six encyclicals, including Humani Generis, which is still relevant to the Church's position on evolution. He also decisively eliminated the Italian majority in the College of Cardinals with the Grand Consistory in 1946. Most sedevacantists regard Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope to occupy the Holy See. His ongoing canonization process progressed to the venerable stage on September 2, 2000 under Pope John Paul II.
Another founding father of the European Suprastate was Konrad Adenauer.
As a devout Roman Catholic, he joined the Centre Party in 1906 and was elected to Cologne's city council in the same year. In 1909, he became Vice-Mayor of Cologne. From 1917 to 1933, he served as Mayor of Cologne. He had the unpleasant task of heading Cologne in the era of British occupation following the First World War and lasting until 1926. He managed to establish faithful relations with the British military authorities and flirted with Rhenish separatism (a Rhenish state as part of Germany, but outside Prussia). During the Weimar Republic, he was president of the Prussian State Council (Preußischer Staatsrat) from 1922 to 1933, which was the representative of the Prussian cities and provinces.
When the Nazis rose to power in 1933, the Centre Party lost the "elections" in Cologne and Adenauer fled to the abbey of Maria Laach, threatened by the new government after he had refused even to shake hands with a local Nazi leader. The hosting of Adenauer for a year at this abbey was cited by its abbot after the war, when accused by Heinrich Boll and others of collaboration with the Nazis.
He was imprisoned briefly after the Night of the Long Knives. During the next two years, he changed residences often due to reprisals inflicted on him by the Nazis. In 1937, he was successful in claiming at least some compensation for his once confiscated house and managed to live in seclusion for some years.
According to Albert Speer in his Spandau: The Secret Diaries, Hitler expressed admiration for Adenauer, noting his building of a road circling the city as a bypass, and of a "green belt" of parks. However, both Hitler and Speer felt that due to Adenauer's principal political views and general stubbornness, he couldn’t possibly play any role within their movement nor be helpful to the Nazi party in any way.
After the failed assassination attempt on Hitler, in 1944, he was imprisoned for the second time, being known as an opponent of the regime. But no active role in the plot could be connected to him by the Gestapo and he was released some weeks later. Shortly after the war, the Americans installed him again as Mayor of Cologne, but the British administration dismissed him for his alleged incompetence.
Adenauer's achievements include the establishment of a stable democracy in defeated Germany, a lasting reconciliation with France, a general political reorientation towards the West, recovering limited but far-reaching sovereignty for West Germany by firmly integrating it with the emerging Euro-Atlantic community (NATO and the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation). Adenauer is also associated with establishing an efficient pension system, which ensured an unparallelled prosperity for retired persons, and - along with his Minister for Economic Affairs and successor, Ludwig Erhard - with the West German model of a "social market economy" (a mixed economy with capitalism moderated by elements of social welfare and Catholic social teaching), which allowed for the boom period known as the Wirtschaftswunder ("economic miracle") and produced broad prosperity. Thus Adenauer ensured a truly free and democratic society which had been almost unknown to the German people before - notwithstanding that more or less hopeless attempt between 1919 and 1933 (the Weimar Republic) - and which is today not just normal but also deeply integrated into modern German society. He thereby laid the ground for the western world to trust Germany again in spite of all the horrible crimes that had been committed in Germany's name under the Nazis. Precisely because of Adenauer’s former policy a later reunification of both German states was possible, the united Germany remaining part of the European Union and the Nato.
Tony Blair will declare himself a Catholic after he leaves Downing Street, according to a leading cleric.
Father Michael Seed, who has been a spiritual confidant to Mr Blair and his family for the last six years, made the prediction to friends at a recent memorial service.
Known for bringing high-profile politicians and aristocrats into the Catholic fold, Seed said that Blair was ‘a Catholic by desire’ and that this did not necessitate a formal conversion.
There has long been speculation that Mr Blair, an Anglican, would convert to Catholicism, the faith of his wife Cherie.
Meanwhile, Downing Street refused to comment on Blair's religious intentions. A spokesman said: "This story is always circulating in one form or another.
"The Prime Minister remains a member of the Church of England."
Anglican leader the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has recently praised Blair for defending religious values and differences during his time in office.
Dr Williams paid tribute to Blair's commitment to religious freedom: "Tony Blair has understood as well as any Prime Minister in recent times why religion matters, how faith communities contribute to the common good and why religious extremism should have no place in a progressive society.
"As a man of genuine personal faith, he has not shied away from the risk associated with confronting extremism, while respecting difference."
The EU is one of the largest economic and political entities in the world, with a total population of 494 million and a combined nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of €11.6 (US$15.6) trillion in 2006.[1] The Union is a single market with a common trade policy,[2] a Common Agricultural/Fisheries Policy, and a Regional policy to assist underdeveloped regions.[3] It introduced a single currency, the euro, adopted by 13 member states. The EU initiated a limited Common Foreign and Security Policy, and a limited Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.
Important EU institutions and bodies include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, and the European Parliament. Citizens of EU member states are also EU citizens: they directly elect the European Parliament, once every five years. They can invest, live, travel, and work in other member states (with some temporary restrictions on new member states[4]). Passport control and customs checks at most internal borders were abolished by the Schengen Agreement.
Europe is one of the seven traditional continents of the Earth. Physically and geologically, Europe is the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia, west of Asia. Europe is bounded to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea, to the southeast by the Caucasus Mountains and the Black Sea and the waterways connecting the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. To the east, Europe is generally divided from Asia by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, and by the Caspian Sea.
Europe is the world's second-smallest continent in terms of area, covering about 10,180,000 square kilometres (3,930,000 sq mi) or 2.0% of the Earth's surface. The only continent smaller than Europe is Australia. In terms of population, it is the third-largest continent (after Asia and Africa) with a population of 710,000,000 or about 11% of the world's population. However, the term continent can refer to a cultural and political distinction or a physiographic one, leading to various perspectives about Europe's precise borders, area, and population. Russia is Europe's largest country by area and population. Europe is the birthplace of the European Union, a union of twenty-seven independent states based on the European Communities and founded to enhance political, economic and social co-operation and integration.
Pope Pius XII (Latin: Pius PP. XII), born Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (March 2, 1876 – October 9, 1958), reigned as the 260th pope, the head of the Roman Catholic Church and sovereign of Vatican City State, from March 2, 1939 until his death.
Before election to the papacy, Pacelli served as secretary of the Department of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, papal nuncio and cardinal secretary of state, in which roles he worked to conclude treaties with European nations, most notably the Reichskonkordat with Germany. After World War II, he was a vocal supporter of lenient policies toward vanquished nations and a staunch opponent of communism. His leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and The Holocaust remains the subject of continued historical controversy.
One of the "Founding Fathers" of a Supranational Europe was Robert Schuman,a Luxembourg born ex Nazi prisoner and politician for France in 1948.
les of Nato's Article 5 were also repeated in the European Defence Community Treaty which failed as the French National Assembly declined to vote its ratification. Schuman was a proponent of an Atlantic Community. This was strongly resisted by Communists, ultranationalists and Gaullists.
Schuman later served as Minister of Justice and first President of the European Parliamentary Assembly which bestowed on him by acclamation the title 'Father of Europe'. In 1958 he received the Karlspreis, an Award by the German city of Aachen to people who contributed to the European idea and European peace, commemorating Charlemagne, ruler of what is today France and Germany, who resided and is buried at Aachen. He was also a knight of the Order of Pope Pius IX.
Celibate, modest and un-ostentatious, Schuman was an intensely religious man and Bible scholar. He was strongly influenced by the writings of Pope Pius XII, St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain. It was announced on 15 May 2004 that the diocesan investigation of the cause of beatification would soon conclude; this might have as its result that Schuman will be declared "Blessed" by the Roman Catholic Church.
Pius is one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility by issuing an apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, which defines ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. He also promulgated forty-six encyclicals, including Humani Generis, which is still relevant to the Church's position on evolution. He also decisively eliminated the Italian majority in the College of Cardinals with the Grand Consistory in 1946. Most sedevacantists regard Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope to occupy the Holy See. His ongoing canonization process progressed to the venerable stage on September 2, 2000 under Pope John Paul II.
Another founding father of the European Suprastate was Konrad Adenauer.
As a devout Roman Catholic, he joined the Centre Party in 1906 and was elected to Cologne's city council in the same year. In 1909, he became Vice-Mayor of Cologne. From 1917 to 1933, he served as Mayor of Cologne. He had the unpleasant task of heading Cologne in the era of British occupation following the First World War and lasting until 1926. He managed to establish faithful relations with the British military authorities and flirted with Rhenish separatism (a Rhenish state as part of Germany, but outside Prussia). During the Weimar Republic, he was president of the Prussian State Council (Preußischer Staatsrat) from 1922 to 1933, which was the representative of the Prussian cities and provinces.
When the Nazis rose to power in 1933, the Centre Party lost the "elections" in Cologne and Adenauer fled to the abbey of Maria Laach, threatened by the new government after he had refused even to shake hands with a local Nazi leader. The hosting of Adenauer for a year at this abbey was cited by its abbot after the war, when accused by Heinrich Boll and others of collaboration with the Nazis.
He was imprisoned briefly after the Night of the Long Knives. During the next two years, he changed residences often due to reprisals inflicted on him by the Nazis. In 1937, he was successful in claiming at least some compensation for his once confiscated house and managed to live in seclusion for some years.
According to Albert Speer in his Spandau: The Secret Diaries, Hitler expressed admiration for Adenauer, noting his building of a road circling the city as a bypass, and of a "green belt" of parks. However, both Hitler and Speer felt that due to Adenauer's principal political views and general stubbornness, he couldn’t possibly play any role within their movement nor be helpful to the Nazi party in any way.
After the failed assassination attempt on Hitler, in 1944, he was imprisoned for the second time, being known as an opponent of the regime. But no active role in the plot could be connected to him by the Gestapo and he was released some weeks later. Shortly after the war, the Americans installed him again as Mayor of Cologne, but the British administration dismissed him for his alleged incompetence.
Adenauer's achievements include the establishment of a stable democracy in defeated Germany, a lasting reconciliation with France, a general political reorientation towards the West, recovering limited but far-reaching sovereignty for West Germany by firmly integrating it with the emerging Euro-Atlantic community (NATO and the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation). Adenauer is also associated with establishing an efficient pension system, which ensured an unparallelled prosperity for retired persons, and - along with his Minister for Economic Affairs and successor, Ludwig Erhard - with the West German model of a "social market economy" (a mixed economy with capitalism moderated by elements of social welfare and Catholic social teaching), which allowed for the boom period known as the Wirtschaftswunder ("economic miracle") and produced broad prosperity. Thus Adenauer ensured a truly free and democratic society which had been almost unknown to the German people before - notwithstanding that more or less hopeless attempt between 1919 and 1933 (the Weimar Republic) - and which is today not just normal but also deeply integrated into modern German society. He thereby laid the ground for the western world to trust Germany again in spite of all the horrible crimes that had been committed in Germany's name under the Nazis. Precisely because of Adenauer’s former policy a later reunification of both German states was possible, the united Germany remaining part of the European Union and the Nato.
Tony Blair will declare himself a Catholic after he leaves Downing Street, according to a leading cleric.
Father Michael Seed, who has been a spiritual confidant to Mr Blair and his family for the last six years, made the prediction to friends at a recent memorial service.
Known for bringing high-profile politicians and aristocrats into the Catholic fold, Seed said that Blair was ‘a Catholic by desire’ and that this did not necessitate a formal conversion.
There has long been speculation that Mr Blair, an Anglican, would convert to Catholicism, the faith of his wife Cherie.
Meanwhile, Downing Street refused to comment on Blair's religious intentions. A spokesman said: "This story is always circulating in one form or another.
"The Prime Minister remains a member of the Church of England."
Anglican leader the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has recently praised Blair for defending religious values and differences during his time in office.
Dr Williams paid tribute to Blair's commitment to religious freedom: "Tony Blair has understood as well as any Prime Minister in recent times why religion matters, how faith communities contribute to the common good and why religious extremism should have no place in a progressive society.
"As a man of genuine personal faith, he has not shied away from the risk associated with confronting extremism, while respecting difference."
Monday, 28 May 2007
Optimism among Communism
"...it is a disgrace that Europe had to wait for a word of command from the other side of the Atlantic before she realised where her own duty lay."
Dr. Henri Brugmans,Chairman of the European Union of Federalists, August 1947.
To achieve peace,freedom and an end to "all crimes and follies of the past" Winston Churchill said, "we must build a kind of United States of Europe."
Churchill renewed this message in London in 1947, at The Hague in 1948 and at Strasbourg in 1949. Churchill's world stature helped inspire the steps to create the European Union.
But the type of European Federation envisioned by Churchill and that which would become to take shape in the 1950's were distinctively different. He made this clear by his references at Zurich to the "pan-European union" worked on by the French patriot Aristide Briand and the "immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War- the League of Nations. Churchill had envisioned an internationalist idealism for Europe from the 1920's based on an alliance of sovereign states.
Conversely it was this type of "intergovernmentalism" which the founders of what was to be the European Union regarded as their greatest obstacle. When the project was finally launched ,the man chiefly responsible was openly dismissive of Churchill's type of "United Europe". Monnet was convinced that the goal could only be teached in a wholly different way.
Churchill had clarified in Zurich and later that any "United Europe" was a rooted partnership between Germany and France. There was no question of direct participation with Britain. "The British Empire and Commonwealth" were to remain separate.
All the essential ideas of the European Union had come into being from essential ideas made in the 1920's , before the rise of Hitler, as a way to prevent a recurrence of a First World War. In that sense they failed.
Chiefly, since the ideas were disinterred after 1945 the political balance of Europe had changed the world out of recognition. The internal fighting between France and Germany paled into significance against "an iron curtain descended across the Continent",in that respect Europe's national enmities were specifically addressed to solving a problem which no longer existed.
The end of World War Two was to act as a spur to scheme more international co-operation than the end of the Great War 25 years earlier. Many of the international institutions which were to provide a framework for the post-war world were called into being at this time. Foremost among them was the United Nations, set up in 1945 to replace the League of Nations(which was only formally dissolvedin 1946). The first UN General Assembly was held in London in January 1946 under the presidency of Belgium's foreign minister Paul-Henri Spaak. From the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, as instruments of post-war financial and economic reconstruction, came the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In October 1947, indirectly through the UN, came the signing of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs designed to work for the progressive liberalisation of World Trade. All these were intergovernmental structures based on co-operation between sovereign governments. As with the League of Nations before them, their prime mover,closely supported by Britain, was the United States of America. Americans would not again retreat into isolationism. The US firmly committed to playing a central role symbolised by the new HQ was positioned in New York and not in Switzerland.
US isolationism was impossible because of the post Second world war re-shaping of power. Leading Western European nations had their imperial possessions scattered across every continent.But the US and USSR had become superpowers with two potentially deadly conflicting political idealogies.
Far from being the centre of world politics, Europe was to become the reservoir in which the two new superpowers would act out their greater rivalry.
The division of Europe was to become deeper. In 1944 the Moscow conference had agreed that most of central and Eastern Europe ,from being liberated from Nazi occupation by the Red Army, would fall after the war into "the Soviet sphere of influence".
Pre-war democracies ended after hostilities including Czechoslovakia,Poland, Hungary and Romania who then re-established democratic, multiparty forms of government. Although under the shadow of Soviet occupation,the full political ambitions of the Communists were not yet obvious. Yugoslavia came under one-party Communist rule by Tito,then still Stalin's ally. Albania followed suit, and played an active role in promoting an attempted Communist take-over of Greece only narrowly averted by Britain's armed intervention in the Greek civil war of 1944-1945.
However, there was still grounds for optimism to re-establish self-governing institutions in all those occupied countries that had been liberated by the Western Allies; despite the presence in Italy and France of large Communist parties, which were to provide a constant reminder of how fragile the re-born democracies of Western Europe might prove if economic recovery was not successful.
Dr. Henri Brugmans,Chairman of the European Union of Federalists, August 1947.
To achieve peace,freedom and an end to "all crimes and follies of the past" Winston Churchill said, "we must build a kind of United States of Europe."
Churchill renewed this message in London in 1947, at The Hague in 1948 and at Strasbourg in 1949. Churchill's world stature helped inspire the steps to create the European Union.
But the type of European Federation envisioned by Churchill and that which would become to take shape in the 1950's were distinctively different. He made this clear by his references at Zurich to the "pan-European union" worked on by the French patriot Aristide Briand and the "immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War- the League of Nations. Churchill had envisioned an internationalist idealism for Europe from the 1920's based on an alliance of sovereign states.
Conversely it was this type of "intergovernmentalism" which the founders of what was to be the European Union regarded as their greatest obstacle. When the project was finally launched ,the man chiefly responsible was openly dismissive of Churchill's type of "United Europe". Monnet was convinced that the goal could only be teached in a wholly different way.
Churchill had clarified in Zurich and later that any "United Europe" was a rooted partnership between Germany and France. There was no question of direct participation with Britain. "The British Empire and Commonwealth" were to remain separate.
All the essential ideas of the European Union had come into being from essential ideas made in the 1920's , before the rise of Hitler, as a way to prevent a recurrence of a First World War. In that sense they failed.
Chiefly, since the ideas were disinterred after 1945 the political balance of Europe had changed the world out of recognition. The internal fighting between France and Germany paled into significance against "an iron curtain descended across the Continent",in that respect Europe's national enmities were specifically addressed to solving a problem which no longer existed.
The end of World War Two was to act as a spur to scheme more international co-operation than the end of the Great War 25 years earlier. Many of the international institutions which were to provide a framework for the post-war world were called into being at this time. Foremost among them was the United Nations, set up in 1945 to replace the League of Nations(which was only formally dissolvedin 1946). The first UN General Assembly was held in London in January 1946 under the presidency of Belgium's foreign minister Paul-Henri Spaak. From the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, as instruments of post-war financial and economic reconstruction, came the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In October 1947, indirectly through the UN, came the signing of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs designed to work for the progressive liberalisation of World Trade. All these were intergovernmental structures based on co-operation between sovereign governments. As with the League of Nations before them, their prime mover,closely supported by Britain, was the United States of America. Americans would not again retreat into isolationism. The US firmly committed to playing a central role symbolised by the new HQ was positioned in New York and not in Switzerland.
US isolationism was impossible because of the post Second world war re-shaping of power. Leading Western European nations had their imperial possessions scattered across every continent.But the US and USSR had become superpowers with two potentially deadly conflicting political idealogies.
Far from being the centre of world politics, Europe was to become the reservoir in which the two new superpowers would act out their greater rivalry.
The division of Europe was to become deeper. In 1944 the Moscow conference had agreed that most of central and Eastern Europe ,from being liberated from Nazi occupation by the Red Army, would fall after the war into "the Soviet sphere of influence".
Pre-war democracies ended after hostilities including Czechoslovakia,Poland, Hungary and Romania who then re-established democratic, multiparty forms of government. Although under the shadow of Soviet occupation,the full political ambitions of the Communists were not yet obvious. Yugoslavia came under one-party Communist rule by Tito,then still Stalin's ally. Albania followed suit, and played an active role in promoting an attempted Communist take-over of Greece only narrowly averted by Britain's armed intervention in the Greek civil war of 1944-1945.
However, there was still grounds for optimism to re-establish self-governing institutions in all those occupied countries that had been liberated by the Western Allies; despite the presence in Italy and France of large Communist parties, which were to provide a constant reminder of how fragile the re-born democracies of Western Europe might prove if economic recovery was not successful.
Friday, 25 May 2007
Early opposition to the European Supra State
Two fascist opposers to the "New Europe" early in 1941 were Mussolini's finance minister Alberto de Stefani and Camillo Pellizzi, editor of the magazine "Civilita Fascista". De Stefani wrote, " ...Nationalities do not form a sound basis for the planned new order...A European Union could not be subject to the variations of internal policy that are characteristic of liberal regimes.
But many advocates since the 1920's of the cause of European unity in occupied countries believed themselves that working with the Nazis was a way to achieve it. The list included Benoist Mechin, secretary of State for Franco-German relations and a Vichyite, the writer and philosopher Pierre Drieu La Rochelle. The Belge leader of the Fascist Rexist movement wrote a tract, Europe for the Europeans in which he saw Nazi Europe not as a political entity but as a bastion against Communism. The Norwegian collaborationist leader, Vidkun Quisling argued that Europe would only be strong and peaceful if united. He wanted to see a Pan-Germanic Federation with a federal flag and the Fuhrer as president. Nothing in the birth of Europe illuminati provided any practical model for the type of political integration that was to emerge after the war.
As one historian commented, " Such pan- European illusions were actively fostered by the Nazis themselves. Clearly the bulk of Third Reich statements relating to pan-Europeanism disseminated by the Nazis in the occupied territories can be dismissed as cynical propaganda calculated to encourage, if not the active co-operation, then the passive acquiescence of the new vassals. Neither Hitler,nor many of his leading hierarchs such as Goebbels, had the slightest intention to compromise absolute German hegemony through the creation of a European confederation, "subsidiary" or otherwise."
The Nazis did not supply "European Integration" as it was to spill over in the post war years. Nazi thinking was an ideological cul-de-sac.
While Nazis occupied Europe during the war, the dreams of European Unity went underground. In each occupied country, resistance movements emerged. If this movement as a whole had any unifying philosophy, it was a determination to seek a new beginning in the post-war reconstruction of Europe. This then was the concept of a United Europe. In common with the pre-war "Pan Europeanists" (and that of the Nazis when it suited them), they held nationalism and national pride to be responsible for past European wars. The prevailing ethos supported the creation of new structures to transcend historical boundaries. This much was openly declared, long before the end of the war, by resistance groups all over Europe including Germany itself.
But the most strident supporters of European unity were the Italian Communists, who were at the core of the anti-Fascist movement.
So came of this, a major figure to contribute to the development of the European Union, the Italian, Altiero Spinelli. Born in 1907 he was a Communist at the age of 17 and had been active in opposing Mussolini's fascism. In 1928 he was arrested and imprisoned, spending 12 years in jai before eventually being sent to a prison on the Mediterranean island of Ventonene, 30 miles west of Naples.
In prison he broke with Communism and embraced the cause of European unity. With the help of a fellow prisoner, Ernesto Rossi, he composed what became known as the "Ventonen Manifesto" under the title Towards a free and United Europe. This was to become one of the basic texts of European Federalism. The co-author was a friend of the liberal economist,Luigi Einaudi.
Spinelli considered the future Europe to be plunging into chaos,exploiting this to secure the "definitive abolition of the division of Europe into national,sovereign states. In order to achieve this he called on his followers to foment revolution. True to his political ideology he proclaimed, "the European revolution must be socialist.
Spinelli had in mind an all powerful,supra national authority. He saw this developing into a "United States of Europe" with its own constitution and armed forces. It would have the power to ensure that its "deliberations for the maintenance of common order are executed in the individual federal states."
He stated," During revolutionary times, when institutions are not simply to be administered but created," he insisted," democratic procedures fail miserably."
A passage describes Spinelli's model of "European Federation" from his manifesto;
"During the revolutionary crisis, this movement will have the task of organising and guiding progressive forces,using all the popular bodies which form spontaneously...waiting to be guided. It derives its vision and certainty of what must be done from the knowledge that it the deepest needs of modern society and not from any previous recognition by popular will, as yet non-existent.In this way it issues the basic guidelines of the new order..By this dictatorship of the revolutionary party a new State will be formed, and around this State new, genuine democracy will grow."
In other words, "the people" were not to be involved in the process of constructing the new state. Popular assent would only be sought when the project was all but complete. At that moment their "crowning dream" would be the calling of a "constituent assembly" to "decide upon the constitution they want". The drawing up of the constitution would be the final act in the emergence of the "United States of Europe"
In 1941 Spinell's manifesto was smuggled to the mainland from prison. His idea came to be adopted by the Communist-dominated Italian Resistance as a whole, leading to the formation in 1943 of the European Federalist Movement. This spread the message to other groups in other countries giving rise to a series of meetings in neutral Switzerland, culminating in a major conference in Geneva in July 1944, attended by activists from all over Europe. At Geneva, the assembled representatives produced their Draft Declaration of the European Resistance Movement, largely drafted by Spinelli who had by now been released from prison.
The life of people in the post-war world,it was agreed, must be based on "the respect of the human individual,on security, on social justice, on the complete utilisation of economic resources for the benefit of the whole, and on the autonomous development of national life."
These aims,it was considered "cannot be fulfilled unless the different countries of the world agree to go beyond the dogma of the absolute sovereignty of the state and unite in a single federal organisation." The draft declared a worldwide organisation could not be achieved immediately,so in the immediate post-war period, "the European problem must be given a more direct and more radical solution."
This "direct solution" would consist of a European "Federal Union". It would control its own army, no national armies would be allowed. It would also have its own court, with sole jurisdiction over constitutional matters and exclusive rights to arbitrate in conflicts between the central authority and member states.
It was another 40 years before Spinelli would make his central contribution to the shape of the European Union as it finally emerged. But the ideals on which this was based were all there in the declaration of 1944, originating from the few pages he had scribbled in his island prison, at a time when Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had seemed the undisputed master of Europe.
But many advocates since the 1920's of the cause of European unity in occupied countries believed themselves that working with the Nazis was a way to achieve it. The list included Benoist Mechin, secretary of State for Franco-German relations and a Vichyite, the writer and philosopher Pierre Drieu La Rochelle. The Belge leader of the Fascist Rexist movement wrote a tract, Europe for the Europeans in which he saw Nazi Europe not as a political entity but as a bastion against Communism. The Norwegian collaborationist leader, Vidkun Quisling argued that Europe would only be strong and peaceful if united. He wanted to see a Pan-Germanic Federation with a federal flag and the Fuhrer as president. Nothing in the birth of Europe illuminati provided any practical model for the type of political integration that was to emerge after the war.
As one historian commented, " Such pan- European illusions were actively fostered by the Nazis themselves. Clearly the bulk of Third Reich statements relating to pan-Europeanism disseminated by the Nazis in the occupied territories can be dismissed as cynical propaganda calculated to encourage, if not the active co-operation, then the passive acquiescence of the new vassals. Neither Hitler,nor many of his leading hierarchs such as Goebbels, had the slightest intention to compromise absolute German hegemony through the creation of a European confederation, "subsidiary" or otherwise."
The Nazis did not supply "European Integration" as it was to spill over in the post war years. Nazi thinking was an ideological cul-de-sac.
While Nazis occupied Europe during the war, the dreams of European Unity went underground. In each occupied country, resistance movements emerged. If this movement as a whole had any unifying philosophy, it was a determination to seek a new beginning in the post-war reconstruction of Europe. This then was the concept of a United Europe. In common with the pre-war "Pan Europeanists" (and that of the Nazis when it suited them), they held nationalism and national pride to be responsible for past European wars. The prevailing ethos supported the creation of new structures to transcend historical boundaries. This much was openly declared, long before the end of the war, by resistance groups all over Europe including Germany itself.
But the most strident supporters of European unity were the Italian Communists, who were at the core of the anti-Fascist movement.
So came of this, a major figure to contribute to the development of the European Union, the Italian, Altiero Spinelli. Born in 1907 he was a Communist at the age of 17 and had been active in opposing Mussolini's fascism. In 1928 he was arrested and imprisoned, spending 12 years in jai before eventually being sent to a prison on the Mediterranean island of Ventonene, 30 miles west of Naples.
In prison he broke with Communism and embraced the cause of European unity. With the help of a fellow prisoner, Ernesto Rossi, he composed what became known as the "Ventonen Manifesto" under the title Towards a free and United Europe. This was to become one of the basic texts of European Federalism. The co-author was a friend of the liberal economist,Luigi Einaudi.
Spinelli considered the future Europe to be plunging into chaos,exploiting this to secure the "definitive abolition of the division of Europe into national,sovereign states. In order to achieve this he called on his followers to foment revolution. True to his political ideology he proclaimed, "the European revolution must be socialist.
Spinelli had in mind an all powerful,supra national authority. He saw this developing into a "United States of Europe" with its own constitution and armed forces. It would have the power to ensure that its "deliberations for the maintenance of common order are executed in the individual federal states."
He stated," During revolutionary times, when institutions are not simply to be administered but created," he insisted," democratic procedures fail miserably."
A passage describes Spinelli's model of "European Federation" from his manifesto;
"During the revolutionary crisis, this movement will have the task of organising and guiding progressive forces,using all the popular bodies which form spontaneously...waiting to be guided. It derives its vision and certainty of what must be done from the knowledge that it the deepest needs of modern society and not from any previous recognition by popular will, as yet non-existent.In this way it issues the basic guidelines of the new order..By this dictatorship of the revolutionary party a new State will be formed, and around this State new, genuine democracy will grow."
In other words, "the people" were not to be involved in the process of constructing the new state. Popular assent would only be sought when the project was all but complete. At that moment their "crowning dream" would be the calling of a "constituent assembly" to "decide upon the constitution they want". The drawing up of the constitution would be the final act in the emergence of the "United States of Europe"
In 1941 Spinell's manifesto was smuggled to the mainland from prison. His idea came to be adopted by the Communist-dominated Italian Resistance as a whole, leading to the formation in 1943 of the European Federalist Movement. This spread the message to other groups in other countries giving rise to a series of meetings in neutral Switzerland, culminating in a major conference in Geneva in July 1944, attended by activists from all over Europe. At Geneva, the assembled representatives produced their Draft Declaration of the European Resistance Movement, largely drafted by Spinelli who had by now been released from prison.
The life of people in the post-war world,it was agreed, must be based on "the respect of the human individual,on security, on social justice, on the complete utilisation of economic resources for the benefit of the whole, and on the autonomous development of national life."
These aims,it was considered "cannot be fulfilled unless the different countries of the world agree to go beyond the dogma of the absolute sovereignty of the state and unite in a single federal organisation." The draft declared a worldwide organisation could not be achieved immediately,so in the immediate post-war period, "the European problem must be given a more direct and more radical solution."
This "direct solution" would consist of a European "Federal Union". It would control its own army, no national armies would be allowed. It would also have its own court, with sole jurisdiction over constitutional matters and exclusive rights to arbitrate in conflicts between the central authority and member states.
It was another 40 years before Spinelli would make his central contribution to the shape of the European Union as it finally emerged. But the ideals on which this was based were all there in the declaration of 1944, originating from the few pages he had scribbled in his island prison, at a time when Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had seemed the undisputed master of Europe.
Thursday, 24 May 2007
"Fortress Europe"
Salter never gave up hope of his plans for a European steel and coal union. During a meeting in Washington in 1941 he met Paul-Henri Spaak, the pre-war prime minister of Belgium. It marked the beginning of a personal alliance with a dream of a united Europe that was to become extremely influential in the forming of post-war Europe.
As the tide of war swung to the Allies favour, Monnet's attention turned more and more to the shape of a Europe he wished to see emerge in the post-war era.
At the end of February 1943 after the Allies had retaken French North Africa, Monnet was sent to Algiers to arrange for arms shipments to the French Free Forces. Here Monnet formed a close alliance with the politician sent out by Churchill, Harold Macmillan. They had extensive talks about the future of France and post-war Europe, and agreed that, as high-handed as he was De Gaulle was a man of sufficient stature to lead a government in exile.
They laid down there the foundations of a provisional French government, the Comite Francais de Liberation Nationale (CFLN), to be led by de Gaulle. In their first meeting they produced a memorandum which declared:
"There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty with all that implies in terms of prestige politics and economic protectionism. If the nations of Europe adopt defensive positions again, huge armies will be necessary again. Under the future peace treaty, some nations will be allowed to re-arm; others will not. That was tried in 1919;we all know the result..
The nations of Europe are too circumscribed to give their peoples the prosperity made possible, and hence necessary, by modern conditions. They will need larger markets. And they will have to refrain from using a major proportion of their resources to maintain "key" industries needed for national defence...
Prosperity and vital social progress wil remain elusive until the nations of Europe form a federation of a "European entity" which will forge them into a single economic unit..Our concern is a solution to the European problem. The British, the Americans, the Russians ahve worlds of their own into which they can temporarily retreat. France cannot opt out, for her very existence hinges on a solution to the European problem..."
This vision was being developed by Monnet in which European peace could only be maintained if Europe was organised by a supranational authority sufficient to overrule the fractious impulses of national sovereignty. This would forge the member states into a "single economic unit", based on integrating those "key industries needed for national defence", such as coal and steel. Moreover, despite his earlier attempts at Anlgo-French union, it would also be a Europe where no direct involvement of Britain would be involved than that of America or Russia.
In 1942 Europe was politically united. In Hitler's "Fortress Europe", the Fuhrer dismissed European unity as a "presumptious irrelevance". He loathed the early European movement and banned all "European Unity" associations as soon as he had had the chance.
But downscale in the Nazi hierarchy some spent the war years conceiving plans for a federal European unity. Werner Daitz, a leading Nazi economist launched a society for the European Economic Planning and Macroeconomics (Grossraumwirtschaft) and produced a book, "What the New Order in Europe Brings to the European Peoples." His ideologue added to many of the time that attacked "outmoded" notions of national sovereignty and the nation state.
In 1938 Daitz had declared that the idea of the state derived from British political theory and the French Revolution. He held the nation to be small and selfish compared to the "great common undertaking" which was Europe.
Another enthusiast for unity was Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop. In late 1942 he headed a Committee on the Restructuring of Europe, giving a number of academics and politicians free reign to discuss the creation of Europe's future.
The Nazi finance minister, Walther Funk, also held "common interests" had to take precedence over particular ones. He reconstructed the post-war economy within the framework of a "New European Order" and a new world economy.
With Germany in occupied lands and charging the occupied lands for it, Goebbels remarked, "It is only right and just that we take the leadership of Europe into our own hands..The German people...have actually won the hegemony of Europe and have a moral right to it."
Goebbels then recognised that the rhetoric of "Europeanism" could serve a useful propaganda purpose. With the tide of war, he projected Germany as the protector of "European" culture against the barbarians from the east. This sought to encourage occupied countries to "volunteer" their young men to join the Waffen-SS and to mobilise their economies against the Bolshevik hordes in what was increasingly styled a "European war of liberation."
The propaganda had its effect. 50,000 non-Germans from every part of occupied Europe fought on the Eastern front, under the bannerof the Waffen-SS. Many believed they were defending "Europe" rather than serving the interests of Germany.
The disparaging persistent theme from the many disparate themes though, was still one to proclaim the end to the nation state and it's absorption into a greater European identity; and that the emerging "New Europe" could now recover its old self-confidence and compete with any power in the world.
As the tide of war swung to the Allies favour, Monnet's attention turned more and more to the shape of a Europe he wished to see emerge in the post-war era.
At the end of February 1943 after the Allies had retaken French North Africa, Monnet was sent to Algiers to arrange for arms shipments to the French Free Forces. Here Monnet formed a close alliance with the politician sent out by Churchill, Harold Macmillan. They had extensive talks about the future of France and post-war Europe, and agreed that, as high-handed as he was De Gaulle was a man of sufficient stature to lead a government in exile.
They laid down there the foundations of a provisional French government, the Comite Francais de Liberation Nationale (CFLN), to be led by de Gaulle. In their first meeting they produced a memorandum which declared:
"There will be no peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty with all that implies in terms of prestige politics and economic protectionism. If the nations of Europe adopt defensive positions again, huge armies will be necessary again. Under the future peace treaty, some nations will be allowed to re-arm; others will not. That was tried in 1919;we all know the result..
The nations of Europe are too circumscribed to give their peoples the prosperity made possible, and hence necessary, by modern conditions. They will need larger markets. And they will have to refrain from using a major proportion of their resources to maintain "key" industries needed for national defence...
Prosperity and vital social progress wil remain elusive until the nations of Europe form a federation of a "European entity" which will forge them into a single economic unit..Our concern is a solution to the European problem. The British, the Americans, the Russians ahve worlds of their own into which they can temporarily retreat. France cannot opt out, for her very existence hinges on a solution to the European problem..."
This vision was being developed by Monnet in which European peace could only be maintained if Europe was organised by a supranational authority sufficient to overrule the fractious impulses of national sovereignty. This would forge the member states into a "single economic unit", based on integrating those "key industries needed for national defence", such as coal and steel. Moreover, despite his earlier attempts at Anlgo-French union, it would also be a Europe where no direct involvement of Britain would be involved than that of America or Russia.
In 1942 Europe was politically united. In Hitler's "Fortress Europe", the Fuhrer dismissed European unity as a "presumptious irrelevance". He loathed the early European movement and banned all "European Unity" associations as soon as he had had the chance.
But downscale in the Nazi hierarchy some spent the war years conceiving plans for a federal European unity. Werner Daitz, a leading Nazi economist launched a society for the European Economic Planning and Macroeconomics (Grossraumwirtschaft) and produced a book, "What the New Order in Europe Brings to the European Peoples." His ideologue added to many of the time that attacked "outmoded" notions of national sovereignty and the nation state.
In 1938 Daitz had declared that the idea of the state derived from British political theory and the French Revolution. He held the nation to be small and selfish compared to the "great common undertaking" which was Europe.
Another enthusiast for unity was Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop. In late 1942 he headed a Committee on the Restructuring of Europe, giving a number of academics and politicians free reign to discuss the creation of Europe's future.
The Nazi finance minister, Walther Funk, also held "common interests" had to take precedence over particular ones. He reconstructed the post-war economy within the framework of a "New European Order" and a new world economy.
With Germany in occupied lands and charging the occupied lands for it, Goebbels remarked, "It is only right and just that we take the leadership of Europe into our own hands..The German people...have actually won the hegemony of Europe and have a moral right to it."
Goebbels then recognised that the rhetoric of "Europeanism" could serve a useful propaganda purpose. With the tide of war, he projected Germany as the protector of "European" culture against the barbarians from the east. This sought to encourage occupied countries to "volunteer" their young men to join the Waffen-SS and to mobilise their economies against the Bolshevik hordes in what was increasingly styled a "European war of liberation."
The propaganda had its effect. 50,000 non-Germans from every part of occupied Europe fought on the Eastern front, under the bannerof the Waffen-SS. Many believed they were defending "Europe" rather than serving the interests of Germany.
The disparaging persistent theme from the many disparate themes though, was still one to proclaim the end to the nation state and it's absorption into a greater European identity; and that the emerging "New Europe" could now recover its old self-confidence and compete with any power in the world.
Saturday, 19 May 2007
Jimmy Carter Traitor by Christopher Ruddy 2002.
God must have a sense of humor.
In the same month that Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a new book reveals that Carter may be guilty of treason, based on newly unearthed Soviet documents.
And just days after it was announced that Carter had won the Peace Prize, North Korea announced that it had atomic weapons and some "worse stuff."
Carter, the so-called "peacemaker," had been instrumental in the early '90s in "mediating" U.S.-Korean relations, an effort that led to Clinton policies that actually helped North Korea build and acquire these weapons.
Isn't it odd that a man who has helped so many tyrants and dictators through the years should get the Nobel Peace Prize?
We all know that the Nobel committee has long leaned toward the left, and long interpreted "peace" as a result of capitulations by the West and democracies to bullying and tyrannical dictators. So the award should not have come as a surprise.
The Nobel committee said it gave the 39th president the award "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."
The facts show that, far from bringing peace, Carter has left a trail of disaster behind his long path.
Far from being an honest mediator, Carter has been a shameless self-promoter who also may well have committed treason to keep himself in the presidency.
Last week, "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism" (Doubleday) by Peter Schweizer was released.
This book offers damning evidence that Jimmy Carter, as both president and citizen, may have committed treason by enlisting the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections.
Schweizer combed through once-secret KGB and Communist Party files. What he discovered about Jimmy Carter is very disturbing.
Documents show, according to Schweizer, that in the closing days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter "White House dispatched Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin."
Hammer told Dobrynin that Carter was "clearly alarmed at the way things stood in the election campaign."
Hammer asked for Soviet help, especially to help Jewish emigration, which would have helped Carter's standing in key electoral states. Hammer promised, "Carter won't forget that service if he is re-elected."
"Peacemaker" Carter was a boon to the Soviets. During his presidency, the Evil Empire reached its zenith, making bold moves in Ethiopia, Yemen, El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua and Afghanistan.
Carter once again sought the Soviets' help in 1984.
Carter was out of office then, but he still felt the need to visit Ambassador Dobrynin at his Washington home.
According to the Soviet document, Carter came to complain about Reagan and his defense buildup.
Carter told Dobrynin that if the Soviets didn't do something about Reagan, "there would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
Carter's intention was clear. He wanted the Russians to intervene in some way to help get a Democrat back into the White House.
This new evidence questions Jimmy Carter's patriotism.
But Carter's devotion to "peace" also was demonstrated to be wrongheaded by Reagan, who indeed won the Cold War without war, and has brought an era of harsh tyranny against populations worldwide, but bloody conflicts where millions had died.
Reagan's strategy, as Schweizer shows, won the Cold War.
Still, we should not forget that we are still suffering because of Carter's decisions as president. It was Carter's refusal to assist the Shah of Iran that allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalists to gain power and flourish.
Ground Zero has a trail right back to the feet of Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office.
If the Nobel committee were fair, it would have awarded the peace prize to Ronald Reagan.
But that will never happen, because Reagan didn't apologize for dictators, didn't pressure democracies to cave in to dictators, and didn't accept millions of dollars from Arab sheiks and then complain about Israel's human rights record.
And unlike Carter, Reagan never kissed up to the media.
After winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter telephoned NBC's Katie Couric. Even she was surprised by the call. Why would Carter call her, of all people?
Carter, the shameless, self-promoting politician, knew exactly what he was doing.
Good PR from media liberals like Couric had helped cover up his record – a record that includes consorting with our former enemy.
In the same month that Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, a new book reveals that Carter may be guilty of treason, based on newly unearthed Soviet documents.
And just days after it was announced that Carter had won the Peace Prize, North Korea announced that it had atomic weapons and some "worse stuff."
Carter, the so-called "peacemaker," had been instrumental in the early '90s in "mediating" U.S.-Korean relations, an effort that led to Clinton policies that actually helped North Korea build and acquire these weapons.
Isn't it odd that a man who has helped so many tyrants and dictators through the years should get the Nobel Peace Prize?
We all know that the Nobel committee has long leaned toward the left, and long interpreted "peace" as a result of capitulations by the West and democracies to bullying and tyrannical dictators. So the award should not have come as a surprise.
The Nobel committee said it gave the 39th president the award "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development."
The facts show that, far from bringing peace, Carter has left a trail of disaster behind his long path.
Far from being an honest mediator, Carter has been a shameless self-promoter who also may well have committed treason to keep himself in the presidency.
Last week, "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism" (Doubleday) by Peter Schweizer was released.
This book offers damning evidence that Jimmy Carter, as both president and citizen, may have committed treason by enlisting the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections.
Schweizer combed through once-secret KGB and Communist Party files. What he discovered about Jimmy Carter is very disturbing.
Documents show, according to Schweizer, that in the closing days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter "White House dispatched Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin."
Hammer told Dobrynin that Carter was "clearly alarmed at the way things stood in the election campaign."
Hammer asked for Soviet help, especially to help Jewish emigration, which would have helped Carter's standing in key electoral states. Hammer promised, "Carter won't forget that service if he is re-elected."
"Peacemaker" Carter was a boon to the Soviets. During his presidency, the Evil Empire reached its zenith, making bold moves in Ethiopia, Yemen, El Salvador, Grenada, Nicaragua and Afghanistan.
Carter once again sought the Soviets' help in 1984.
Carter was out of office then, but he still felt the need to visit Ambassador Dobrynin at his Washington home.
According to the Soviet document, Carter came to complain about Reagan and his defense buildup.
Carter told Dobrynin that if the Soviets didn't do something about Reagan, "there would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
Carter's intention was clear. He wanted the Russians to intervene in some way to help get a Democrat back into the White House.
This new evidence questions Jimmy Carter's patriotism.
But Carter's devotion to "peace" also was demonstrated to be wrongheaded by Reagan, who indeed won the Cold War without war, and has brought an era of harsh tyranny against populations worldwide, but bloody conflicts where millions had died.
Reagan's strategy, as Schweizer shows, won the Cold War.
Still, we should not forget that we are still suffering because of Carter's decisions as president. It was Carter's refusal to assist the Shah of Iran that allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamic fundamentalists to gain power and flourish.
Ground Zero has a trail right back to the feet of Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office.
If the Nobel committee were fair, it would have awarded the peace prize to Ronald Reagan.
But that will never happen, because Reagan didn't apologize for dictators, didn't pressure democracies to cave in to dictators, and didn't accept millions of dollars from Arab sheiks and then complain about Israel's human rights record.
And unlike Carter, Reagan never kissed up to the media.
After winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter telephoned NBC's Katie Couric. Even she was surprised by the call. Why would Carter call her, of all people?
Carter, the shameless, self-promoting politician, knew exactly what he was doing.
Good PR from media liberals like Couric had helped cover up his record – a record that includes consorting with our former enemy.
Thursday, 17 May 2007
The Birth of a Communist Idea 1918-1932
"Europe is being liquidated, and the League of Nations must be the heir to this great estate." 1918 (Jan Smuts)
If there was one historical event which more than any other inspired what was eventually to become the European Union, it was the battle which waged around Verdun in the First World War. For the British the defining battle was the Somme in the summer of 1916. For France and Germany it was the colossal battleof attrition launched in February the same year, when the French Commander, General Philippe Petain, pronounced that the fortresses on the hills overlooking Verdun on the River Meuse were where the advance of German armies into his country would be brought to a halt. His legendary words "Ils ne passeront pas" were endorsed the same day by France's prime minister Aristide Briand.
For nearly a year, the French and German armies battered each other to destruction in the most intense and prolonged concentration of violence the world had ever seen. French artillery alone fired more than twelve million shells, the German guns considerably more. The number of dead and wounded on both sides exceded 700,000.
The impact of this battle on France was profound. Because of the way in which her citizen soldiers were rotated through the front line,scarcely a town or village in France was untouched by the slaughter. Among the two and a half million Frenchmen who fough in the battle were France's future President Charles De Gaulle, and Louis Delors, whose son Jacques would one day be president of the European Commission. Present for several months fighting for the other side was the father of Germany's future Chancellor, Helmut Kohl.
So deep was the wound Verdun inflicted on the psyche of France that the following year her army was brought to mutiny. Its morale would never fully recover. And from this blow were to emerge two abiding lessons.
The first was a conviction that such a suicidal clash of national armies must never be repeated. The second was much more specific and immediate. It came from the realisation that the war had been shaped more than anything else by industrial power. As the battle for Verdun had developed into a remorseless artillery duel,trainloads of German shells were arriving at the front still warm from the factories of the ruhr. The battle, and the war itself, became less a trial of men and human resolve than of two rival industrial systems. And the French system had been found sorely wanting.
Particularlyy inferior had been the heavy huns, many dating back to the 1870's, able to fire shells at only a seventh of the rate of their German counterparts. More and better guns became vital. But, as France's politicians found to their consternation, manufacturing them and the huge quantities of ammunition needed was beyond the cpacity of an industry which compared equally poorly with Germany's. This had since August 1914, under the inspiration of Walter Rathenau, been put on a fully integrated war footing, under the control of a War Raw Materials Department.
In the summer of 1916 therefore, a crisis-stricken French government gave an industrialist, Louis Loucheur, near-dictatorial powers to reform and develop the manufacturing base. Before the war, Loucheur had been one of the early pioneers in the use of reinforced concrete. In a national economy dominated by artisan manufacture, he was one of the few French technocrats familiar with the techniques of mass production.
With all the power of the state behind him, Loucheur succeeded in his initial task, even building new factories to make the new guns. But improvements in production precipitated critical shortages of steel and coal, exacerbated by the German seizure in the first weeks of the war of around half France's industrial base in the north-east of the country.
Remedying these shortages required massive imports from Britain, and then from the United States. In turn this placed considerable demands on shipping. All this required unprecedented economic co-operation between the Western Allies, leading Loucheur to conclude, like Rathenau befor him, how far success in modern warfare demanded industrial organisation.
Thus, Loucheur came to reflect, industrial organisation was the key to waging war. From this he developed the idea that, if key industries from different countries, above all their coal and steel industries on which modern warfare so much depended, were removed from the control of individual nations and vested in a "higher authority", this might be the means of preserving peace.
If there was one historical event which more than any other inspired what was eventually to become the European Union, it was the battle which waged around Verdun in the First World War. For the British the defining battle was the Somme in the summer of 1916. For France and Germany it was the colossal battleof attrition launched in February the same year, when the French Commander, General Philippe Petain, pronounced that the fortresses on the hills overlooking Verdun on the River Meuse were where the advance of German armies into his country would be brought to a halt. His legendary words "Ils ne passeront pas" were endorsed the same day by France's prime minister Aristide Briand.
For nearly a year, the French and German armies battered each other to destruction in the most intense and prolonged concentration of violence the world had ever seen. French artillery alone fired more than twelve million shells, the German guns considerably more. The number of dead and wounded on both sides exceded 700,000.
The impact of this battle on France was profound. Because of the way in which her citizen soldiers were rotated through the front line,scarcely a town or village in France was untouched by the slaughter. Among the two and a half million Frenchmen who fough in the battle were France's future President Charles De Gaulle, and Louis Delors, whose son Jacques would one day be president of the European Commission. Present for several months fighting for the other side was the father of Germany's future Chancellor, Helmut Kohl.
So deep was the wound Verdun inflicted on the psyche of France that the following year her army was brought to mutiny. Its morale would never fully recover. And from this blow were to emerge two abiding lessons.
The first was a conviction that such a suicidal clash of national armies must never be repeated. The second was much more specific and immediate. It came from the realisation that the war had been shaped more than anything else by industrial power. As the battle for Verdun had developed into a remorseless artillery duel,trainloads of German shells were arriving at the front still warm from the factories of the ruhr. The battle, and the war itself, became less a trial of men and human resolve than of two rival industrial systems. And the French system had been found sorely wanting.
Particularlyy inferior had been the heavy huns, many dating back to the 1870's, able to fire shells at only a seventh of the rate of their German counterparts. More and better guns became vital. But, as France's politicians found to their consternation, manufacturing them and the huge quantities of ammunition needed was beyond the cpacity of an industry which compared equally poorly with Germany's. This had since August 1914, under the inspiration of Walter Rathenau, been put on a fully integrated war footing, under the control of a War Raw Materials Department.
In the summer of 1916 therefore, a crisis-stricken French government gave an industrialist, Louis Loucheur, near-dictatorial powers to reform and develop the manufacturing base. Before the war, Loucheur had been one of the early pioneers in the use of reinforced concrete. In a national economy dominated by artisan manufacture, he was one of the few French technocrats familiar with the techniques of mass production.
With all the power of the state behind him, Loucheur succeeded in his initial task, even building new factories to make the new guns. But improvements in production precipitated critical shortages of steel and coal, exacerbated by the German seizure in the first weeks of the war of around half France's industrial base in the north-east of the country.
Remedying these shortages required massive imports from Britain, and then from the United States. In turn this placed considerable demands on shipping. All this required unprecedented economic co-operation between the Western Allies, leading Loucheur to conclude, like Rathenau befor him, how far success in modern warfare demanded industrial organisation.
Thus, Loucheur came to reflect, industrial organisation was the key to waging war. From this he developed the idea that, if key industries from different countries, above all their coal and steel industries on which modern warfare so much depended, were removed from the control of individual nations and vested in a "higher authority", this might be the means of preserving peace.
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
Who Controls the Press?
NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent that they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....
6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest...
“There it is, folks. The 'We Control the Press' dictate has already been achieved. In fact, it is now axiomatic that media is a Jewish domain. Their control of our thoughts and "ways of thinking" is a foregone conclusion. When they state "If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent that they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses," we can now safely proclaim "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" for our Jewish kings, lords and masters! Most Americans see events, people, places and things through Jewish eyes and think "Jewishly" in ways that are probably more subconscious than explicit.”
5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent that they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....
6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest...
“There it is, folks. The 'We Control the Press' dictate has already been achieved. In fact, it is now axiomatic that media is a Jewish domain. Their control of our thoughts and "ways of thinking" is a foregone conclusion. When they state "If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent that they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses," we can now safely proclaim "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" for our Jewish kings, lords and masters! Most Americans see events, people, places and things through Jewish eyes and think "Jewishly" in ways that are probably more subconscious than explicit.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
