Turning Red: Immigrants Tip the Balance in Belgian Local Elections
From the desk of Paul Belien on Mon, 2006-10-09 10:50
In last March’s local elections in the Netherlands the immigrant vote tipped the balance in favour of the Socialists. The same phenomenon marked yesterday’s local elections in Belgium’s major cities. In Antwerp the Socialists became the largest party. They jumped from 19.5% to 35.3% of the votes, winning 22 of the 55 seats in the municipal council – a gain of ten seats. Seven of the Socialist councillors, almost one third of the total, are Muslim immigrants: Fatma Akbas, Karim Bachar, Ouardia El Taghdouini, Youssef Slassi, Fauzaya Talhaoui, Güler Turan, and Sener Ugurlu. Six of the seven are new in politics.
The self-declared “islamophobic” and Flemish-secessionist Vlaams Belang [Flemish Interest], which until yesterday was Antwerp’s largest party, gained a few extra votes, winning 33.5% of the vote (33.0% last time). Its number of seats remains steady at 20. Antwerp politics is now defined by a polarization between Socialists and the VB. Apart from the VB all parties lost heavily to the Socialists (-7.3% for the Liberals and -6.4% for the Greens). The only party able to avoid being swallowed by the Socialists are the Christian-Democrats. They won 11.2% of the votes, adding an extra 0.1%, and kept their six seats. The Christian-Democrats, too, had put forward immigrant candidates. Two of their elected candidates, one third of the total, are Muslims: Nahima Lanjri and Ergün Top.
The VB also stagnated in other cities with large numbers of immigrants, such as Brussels, Ghent and Mechelen. After the 2000 local elections, in which the VB gained considerably, the Belgian regime extended the vote to immigrants for municipal elections and passed the so-called “Quick Citizenship Bill.” The latter grants hassle-free Belgian citizenship virtually upon demand to every individual who has lived in the country for three (in some cases only two) years, which enfranchises them in the general elections, too (voting is compulsory in Belgium). These measures were introduced with the specific intent of countering the VB.
As Leona Detiège, the then Socialist Antwerp mayor, told Knack Magazine on 13 September 2000: “The Vlaams Blok [as the Vlaams Belang was called at the time] is currently overrepresented because the immigrants are not allowed to vote.” And as Johan Leman, the then director of the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (CEOOR), a government agency working for the Belgian Prime Minister, announced in the newspaper De Standaard on 15 January 2000: “What will ‘our own people’ still mean fifteen years from now? We will get so many new Belgians that this slogan becomes meaningless. The Vlaams Blok is a thing of the past.” Meanwhile six of Leman’s fifteen years have passed...
Ironically, as I pointed out earlier, in their efforts to counter the indigenous “racists” and “fascists” of the VB, the Socialists and Christian-Democrats do not hesitate to put far-right Muslim candidates on their electoral lists. Some of them, such a Murat Denizli, a member of the Turkish racist and fascist organization Grey Wolves which assassinates Socialist councilors at home, have now become Socialist councilors in Belgium (Mr Denizli was elected for the Parti Socialiste in the Brussels borough of Schaarbeek).
On 10 September I wrote that European politics will swing dramatically to the Left in the coming decades, owing to the growing influence of an immigrant vote eager to retain and expand the welfare benefits. Another trend, however, is also visible.
While yesterday’s elections saw the VB stagnate in the cities the party won massively in the smaller towns and villages. This is likely to continue. While Europe’s cities and major towns turn Muslim and red, the countryside will remain indigenous and will become ever more “islamophobic” and hostile to the cities. The indigenous Europeans – at least if they can afford it – are moving out of the cities (indeed, they are fleeing them). As Filip Dewinter, the VB leader in Antwerp, said in an interview last month: “I am a realist. The number of potential voters for our party is declining year by year [in Antwerp, which has 460,000 inhabitants]. Currently a quarter of the population are immigrants. These people do not vote for us. Every year 4,000 indigenous Antwerpians move out and 5,000 immigrants move in.”
The former city dwellers have moved to suburbia, where towns such as Schoten saw their percentage of VB voters rise yesterday from 24.5 to 34.7%, and to rural districts such as Mol, which saw the VB grow from 13.1 to 21.9%.
A reversal of the crusades?
Submitted by BitShifter on Thu, 2006-11-16 06:23.
A reversal of the crusades? Slowly but surely, Islam is steadily gaining control of Europe. What the Lord giveth, He taketh away. Through terrorism by the radicals, to political seats, Islam seems to be on a roll. Not that I;m against anything, but I think a call to order is needed. I hope no other country loses control this easily.
Superficial versus substance
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-10-13 23:01.
I have already clearly stated: (a) that there is great cultural diversity within the muslim world, (b) that the subjugation of women is not as severe in south-east-Asia than in the Arab world, mainly because of the presence of large nonmuslim minorities and remnants of 'secular colonial' legal frameworks, and (c) that 'subjugation' is a matter of degree. Your latest comments are therefore 'superfluous'.
Seeing "girls in tight jeans in Germany" does not say anything relevant about the broad subjugation of women in the muslim world, and neither does the assertion about the presence of "happy women" in that world. The issue is whether women, IN GENERAL, in the muslim world have the same degree of 'freedom and self-determination' as men. Any serious observer of the muslim world will have to answer that question in the negative, as indeed serious and honest (westernised) muslims will confirm. In most muslim countries women do not even have formal 'legal equality' before the law, let alone de facto 'sociological' equality in cultural behavior patterns. It is remarkable that there could be western 'observers' who could deny this observable reality, because of personal individual experiences with 'exciting' women!
As I do not want to offend my "brother" (Mission Impossible) any further, I will not press the issue further. And I agree that this may not be "the main issue for critiquing islam". But, it is a powerful indication of the lack of INDIVIDUAL freedom in that world, and of the lack of respect for individual rights in general (versus adherence to 'group conformity'), perhaps even more so than the absence of political 'democracy' in that world.
attractive muslim women
Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2006-10-13 16:59.
@ mission impossible
I am quite happy to believe that there are attractive women to be found anywhere in the islamic world, just like everywhere else. But, I also think that that particular opinion-cum-observation has nothing to do with the claim that women in general are subjugated to a degree that it is not comparable to virtually anywhere else. I repeat that one could specify various criteria to measure the claim about women's subjugation in islam, starting from religious 'edicts' based on the Kuran, to 'explicit legal prescriptions and discriminations' in islamic countries, to COMMON practical behavior and social discriminations in (especially) Arab societies.
It is too bad that your excitement about "young, attractive...muslim women" seems to blur your vision about the 'big picture' in this matter. Perhaps, a re-reading of last year's famous UN report by (westernised?) 'islamic intellectuals' on the conditions within islamic countries, might help to restore your sense of reality.
A denial of the 'obvious' is never advisable. And, the broad subjugation of women in islamic societies is 'obvious', at least to any 'cool' (unexcited) observer. It is a 'fact' in the sense that it can be backed up with a multitude of indications. One could formulate many hypotheses about the 'why' of this fact. For example, it is typical for totalitarian and semi-totalitarian societies that the 'masters' (political, sometimes politicul-cum-religious leaders) allow some to subjugate others in order to make everybody's subjugation (lack of individual freedom) more tolerable. But this is just a hypothesis which I offer for your consideration, and not a statement of fact. But, the subjugation of women in islamic countries by 'their' men is a broad 'fact'.
Marcfrans, there are Muslim
Submitted by Voyager on Fri, 2006-10-13 17:45.
Marcfrans, there are Muslim societies and Muslim societies - there are places like Malaysia where the Indians make the place rich, but the Malays are Muslim.........and there are places like India.............and then there is Saudi Arabia.
There are Alawite Muslims and I have met such girls wearing tight jeans and looking great in Germany, and then there are others wearing a shroud. The point is that Mission was trying to avoid the black/white thinking that so often comes out on Blogs
Muslim Women & Subjugation
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Fri, 2006-10-13 17:43.
@marcfrans ... yes, some of my most exciting & satisfying experiences have been with Muslim women. They tend to be more "complete" women than our western sisters due to completing their emotional development without being perverted by anti-male propaganda. Had I known less about Islam, I would have gladly married one during the late 1980s, and again during the 90's.
Your arguments would be more convincing if you could quote some hard evidence to back up your endless assertions. So far, you have offered little or nothing. I cannot accept your "emotional certainty" as a basis for proof.
And what exactly is a semi-totalitarian society? How does one measure it semi-ness? 40% totalitarian, 55% totalitarian, 80% totalitarian? What are your yardsticks?
Sorry to appear picky; perhaps I am just trying to help you gather your thoughts more cohesively and do a little self-critique. As I know you are a brother, I have no desire to beat you up.
As I have already said, I know what you mean, and accept your basic premise. Where we differ markedly, is that I don't see female subjugation as the main issue for critiquing Islam. For some reason, you are determined to make this the central issue, if not the only issue. In my experience, there are too many instances where Muslim (mainly educated Arab) women do not feel subjugated and they are completely happy with their lot, with no intention of changing their status. You would do well to accept that, and allow this issue to fizzle out, as it is beginning to get boring, and is leading us nowhere.
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2006-10-12 20:36.
Your perception of the 'big picture' with regard to recent British economic history, and of the functioning of macroeconomics is way off the mark. Building rigs, OCTG, etc...is not 'free', and the (NET) contribution of oil and gas to British GDP is not as substantial as you seem to think. Holland had a lot of natural gas, whereas Belgium did not, but their respective per capita GDP's are very close, etc... The wealth of modern postindustrial economies is not primarily based on extraction of natural resources, but the presence of such (exportable) resources will have a big impact on the production structure of their economies and on their (external) balance of payments and exchange rate. None of these has much to do with the evolution of their respective per capita incomes.
This is not a practical medium to explain the economic concept of "opportunity cost" w.r.t. oil and gas production, nor the economic pros and cons of running external balance of payments deficits. Suffice it to point out to you (1) that there is no correlation between bop surplusses and high income levels, nor between bop deficits and low income levels, and (2) that some of the richest countries in western europe today are not particularly rich in natural resources compared to their poorer counterparts. What is Ireland's great 'natural resource'? Yet it has had the biggest economic flowering of any EU country in recent decades.
The current relative strength of Britain's economy is based on Thatcher's structural reforms, which were maintained under Major and Blair, particularly w.r.t. the flexibility of labor markets and constraining the 'dead hand' of everexpanding government (relative to GDP). These reforms have dramatically improved overall efficiency in the British economy.
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2006-10-12 20:08.
@ mission impossible
You are not the only one here who has spent years living under muslims, and I am very well aware of cultural differences within the islamic world. I also wrote that "subjugation" is always a "matter of degree", both in the islamic world and elsewhere. It is too bad - for you, that is - that the existence of "real, life, young and sexually attractive Muslim women" seems to have blinded your perception of the 'big picture' w.r.t. the islamic world as a whole. One of its major distinguishing characteristics is precisely the subjugation of women to a degree that is not comparable to the rest of the world today. Also, what you seem to fail to realise is that these attractive muslim women in south east asia live in societies with very sizable NONmuslim minorities (and in the Philippines with a christian majority) wich, at least in the past, has attenuated somewhat the subjugation of women and which has helped preserve somewhat longer the secular and democratic facade of the states bequeathed by the former colonial powers.
I am not interested in a stick to beat islam over the head with. But I do want to make factual observations and I am concerned about the subjugation of women AND men.
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Fri, 2006-10-13 05:15.
Again, you seem to have distorted what I wrote in order (I will presume) to give additional credence to your responses.
The real, live, young, and sexually attractive Muslim women I was alluding to were not from South East Asia! You jumped to that conclusion simply because I happened to mention the Southern Philippines didn't you! No, the real, live, young, and sexually attractive Muslim women I was referring to were Arabs: Saudi, UAE, Syrian, and Lebanese; Central Asians: Kyrgyzstani and Indian, and North African: Moroccan.
Contrary to your assertions, I am not blind to the big picture and have been writing about the problems of Islam longer than you have. Nor is there much I have failed to realize about SE Asia, as I am currently living in that region.
If you are not looking for a stick to beat Islam over the head with then why, may we ask, are you getting so hot under the collar about the subjugation of women (in bold type) under Islam??? Frankly, your recent exchanges have appeared slightly incoherent to me. Is it possible you engaging in an argument for arguments' sake?
And lastly, if you do indeed want to make factual observations then the very least you could do is to read and interpret my postings accurately, without introducing rogue elements I did not write or intend.
@ missionimpossible women's roles.
Submitted by lmhough1 on Fri, 2006-10-13 05:54.
Sadly, instead of discussing shared ideas and common goals, an attempt at discussion ends with personal attacks punctuated with silliness like:
"The simple fact is that women are inherently more conservative than men, less prone to risk, and more submissive, much easier to manage, and far happier at repetitive tasks so long as they are part of a sociable group".
Or this one:
"It is western woman's palpable failure to follow her biology, which has helped cause our present dilemmas."
Now there's a rallying cry to unite the West against Islam....
"The simple fact is that
Submitted by Voyager on Fri, 2006-10-13 08:57.
"The simple fact is that women are inherently more conservative than men, less prone to risk, and more submissive, much easier to manage, and far happier at repetitive tasks so long as they are part of a sociable group".
I suggest you read each word and not glide into your prejudices. Wider reading and more life experience will show you that living with illusions is the problem that has undermined Western society. If you have ever held any position of authority you would not even think that paragraph remarkable, but simply a statement of fact. That you imbue it with such import is amusing.
You have watched far too much television if you think a tribe of Amazons is going to save you from being flagellated by a warlike Jihadi..............hiding behind women's skirts might be your safest option but it is not one recommended to men who have been out in the big wide world.
Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2006-10-12 17:12.
...heads in the sand.
Incredibly, there are people here who can deny the 'subjugation' of women in islamic cultures. Does this really need a response? In the face of such refusal to make actual BROAD (not singular individual) empirical observations, should one even attempt to develop criteria to actually measure 'subjugation' (clearly always a matter of degree), and further to make the distinction between legal and social discrimination?
And then there are people who want to load all Israel's sins on the shoulders of Margaret Thatcher. How ridiculous! Her primary focus was on breaking the exorbitant power of the unions in Britain, and to make structural changes in Britain's economy. The results are there for everybody to see. In the 1970's per capita income in Britain had dropped to about 75% of the level in France and Germany. Today it exceeds that in France and Germany. Her secondary focus was on strengthening western unity and values in geopolitics. Read her last book ("Statecraft", 2002), and learn something. It is utterly ludicrous to blame Thatcher for the cultural changes (towards naive-leftism) that occurred in western Academia and media during the past quarter century.
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Thu, 2006-10-12 17:35.
Nobody was blaming Lady Thatcher for the cultural changes mentioned. What was being pointed out was that these subversive developments happened on her watch. I am also aware of the broader improvements she brought about, and which you correctly described. But, there was a heavy price to pay, and we (the British) are still paying it.
As for denying the subjugation of women in Islamic cultures, I don't need to be told anything about their situation. I have spent over 10 years of my life living and working in Islamic cultures (7 different Muslim countries in total - 8 if you include the southern Philippines) so I would rather trust my own eyes, ears, and experiences than rely on the opinions of people who can only pontificate.
I am not prepared to describe my past personal life, but I can at least tell you I have got my information straight from the source: in other words ... real, live, young, and sexually attractive Muslim women.
Go and count the number of different cultures and societies that make up the Islamic world, then ask yourself what are you seeing: cultural differences or purely Islamic characteristics?
I probably know far better than you the kind of subjugation that is possible. But, I wouldn't describe this as the principle stick with which to beat Islam over the head with. There are several other attributes that should be attacked first and foremost in order to destroy it.
I trust I have made my viewpoint a little more clear this time.
In the 1970s per capita
Submitted by Voyager on Thu, 2006-10-12 18:56.
In the 1970s per capita income in Britain had dropped to about 75% of the level in France and Germany. Today it exceeds that in France and Germany.
You really must do better than that marcfrans.
Have you ever heard of North Sea Oil ? It made Britain self-sufficient in gas and oil for a couple of decades, the simple fact of building rigs, manning rigs, building OCTG and in pumping oil made Aberdeen a boom town and boosted GDP as well as reducing the oil import bill.
Thatcher's economy led to huge trade deficits and the first deficits on the trade account in two centuries. The British trade deficit is now huge and growing; Germany is global exporter No1. It is Britain's overseas assets that keep the country from economic crisis. Currently the money supply is growing at the fastest rate since 1990 and inflating property prices.
If you want to live for today Britain is the place, but over the next decade it is going to be very miserable as it has to import oil and gas - that means living standards must fall. Those structural changes you think so wonderful reduced the British engineering export sector to armaments and this is why Thatcher was so keen to get Al-Yamamah for BAe, and used the Pergau Dam as a way of bribing Malaysia to buy weapons, and why Matrix Churchill and other matters took place as arms were shipped to Iraq.
The destruction of British engineering and the collapse of industrial investment left British manufacturing output little above the level of 1973.
The Jumble That Is Gender Politics
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Thu, 2006-10-12 08:30.
Not easy to debate with someone, such as you, who is highly emotional and likes to flit around the intellectual universe like a moth around a lamp in the dead of night. You don't come across as someone who has had much life experience, yet has strong views on so many issues. People with your credentials are part of the West's problem, not its solution. You have a recipe of stock comments that you pluck from here, there, and nowhere in order to support specious or overly-complicated arguments. You'd get farther if you simplifed your thinking processes and stuck to the basics. If we followed your logic, the list of oppressed groups would be longer than a bus timetable, and no more dependable.
Margaret Thatcher was an aberration, and not representative. You overlook the immense contribution her husband Denis made to her sucess. He was her best advisor, and I think she has admitted this in her memoirs. It was during Thatcher's 12(?) year Premiership that the cultural Marxists ensconced themselves deep into the media/educational fabric of British life: Law Schools were both feminized & politicized also. It has already been said, Thatcher won the economic war, but lost the cultural one (because she & her Cabinet failed to look behind the scenes to read the tell-tale signs). For this simple reason, she cannot be truly desribed as a great PM.
There are many western males who believe, just like you, that women are the Calvalry, waiting just over the rise, for the chance to blow their bugles and come sprinting down the hill to our rescue! Sadly, you are living a fantasy and a delusion. We don't need to consider Islam at all, when deciding how to place women in our culture. It is not being "anti-female" to recognize their biological limitations and plan accordingly: it's called maturity mixed with realism. Using feminism to fight Islam is a foolish policy. You might as well shoot rubber bullets.
It was during Thatcher's
Submitted by Voyager on Thu, 2006-10-12 09:49.
It was during Thatcher's 12(?) year Premiership that the cultural Marxists ensconced themselves deep into the media/educational fabric of British life
Largely because she deconstructed the institutional pillars of the realm, dismantling local government, centralising power, running down the armed forces, centralising educational control, and emasculating all other centres of power.
The destruction of opposing viewpoints left placemen in charge of institutions and a marked reduction of public debate. Her economic policies favoured the single, the educated professionals, and freed them of any constraints on consumption or selfish indulgence - consequently they behaved as hyper-individualists with a desire to shape public spending to their own agenda rather than into capital-intensive businesses such as railways, aerospace, gas production, electricity generation, engineering.................it became a service culture, predominantly finance, largely employing female labour.
The Chicago School
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Thu, 2006-10-12 10:16.
@Voyager ... I absolutely agree with that brief analysis; you have summed up what actually happened during the 1980s rather well.
Of course, it is unlikely she intellectualized much of her government's policy. Like most women, she demonstrated her ability to follow a specific dogma (sans its nuances) to the letter, even if it flew in the face of common sense.
Entrance, stage right, Mr. Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics (Monetarism). It was this pseudo-theory (suitably inflated by a Nobel Prize) that drove the unfortunate transformations that took place in Britain during the Thatcher era.
Instead of using North Sea oil revenues to finance massive infrastructure changes/improvements, they were instead squandered on ballooning welfare system payments (e.g. unemployment and invalidity benefits) and on promotional campaigns (Saatchi & Saatchi) that were routinely made in preparation for the sale of national assets so that foreigner investors could regard the British economy as a speculative playground. Lax regulation and insufficient taxes also led to a winner takes all economy: so much for healthy competition.
I believe the French had an appropriate label for Britain during that decade: the laboratory of Europe.
role of women in future conflict
Submitted by lmhough1 on Thu, 2006-10-12 10:55.
Well, this is getting interesting!
The majority of women are neither militant feminist policians nor loony left supporters. They simply have not been engaged in politics because they have not perceived as relevant to their day-to-day lives the foreign issues that men are much more likely to get worked up about. In North America and Europe, whether the conservatives are in power or the liberals, family life is much the same, work life is much the same, child care is much the same (or better with libs of course since they “support” it better).
Moreover, "conservatism" generally has been more threatening to women with its much higher likelihood of endorsement of anti-female dogmatic positions on abortion, female work roles, female rights in marriage, etc. Until now, women have had far more to fear from conservatives than from liberals, have historically gained more from liberalism than from conservatism, and have voted and acted accordingly for the past 100 years.
However, I believe this will change because it will become obvious to women that day-to-day life will change, for the far worse, for non-Muslim Europeans, with socialist/muslim policies that will take aware their wealth, freedoms, and future opportunities.
Submitted by Voyager on Thu, 2006-10-12 12:39.
anti-female dogmatic positions on abortion,
That betrays an ideological position and one deeply rooted in psychological rather than observational analysis
I am having difficulty construing this sentence as I believe it is illogical. It expresses an opinion about women which I find unsupported in fact, and can only assume the author has an idee fixe.
Personally, I do not believe women like abortion, I have dated women haunted by their youthful abortion, necessity at the time, but lasting burden. The necessity was having an affaire with a married man who was charitable enough to fund the abortion for his workplace subordinate on Wall Street. Who says chivalry is dead ?
There are 50 abortions a day in Britain, I do not believe 50 happy women emerge from the procedure. Nor do I believe it is men who oppose abortion and women who yearn for it. Thus I found the phrase seriously odd. Every man has a mother, many have sisters, others have daughters - to divide the world into black and white reflects more on the commentators mental condition and personality disorder than on any objective reality.
The simple fact is that women are inherently more conservative than men, less prone to risk, and more submissive, much easier to manage, and far happier at repetitive tasks so long as they are part of a sociable group. THe Married Women's Property Act was passed in 1848 in New York and 1882 in Great Britain - votes for women came in 1918 in Britain.
Women have tended to vote for conservative parties in the main, ones more likely to sustain family and health provision. The welfare state is of primary benefit to females. In Great Britain 12% income tax payers produce 60% income tax revenue, it is unlikely that these are women.
role of women
Submitted by lmhough1 on Thu, 2006-10-12 11:10.
Muslim women are clearly subjugated now. They have been ground down and brainwashed for 1000 years, or killed if they do not obey. Even so, some of the more effective speakers against Islam in the past few years have been muslim women. I believe this is the Achilles' heel of Islam.
Further, I cannot see how a 10th generation Western woman, taking for granted her independence, right to a good job, to owning property, to walking out in public unmolested by Koran waving lunatics who throw stones at her for showing skin, will simply accept a new way of life.
And when women realize what a world they are leaving for themselves and their children, they will begin to support their men in the battle against Islam - not by staying at home and having babies like some in this forum seem to think is their best contribution, but by exercising their voting powers in an appropriate way. Not all will do so, obviously, but vastly more than now.
This is not "using feminism to fight Islam", it is engaging the other half of Western society in the battle. Until now, and to the present time, they are not engaged, and in fact I agree that they have been counter productive. I hope, and believe, though that this will change.
If women don't become engaged in the battle, though, then our chances of winning are that much poorer. Hopefully the anti-female opinions that seem to be bubbling up from under the surface in this debate will not dissuade them.
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Thu, 2006-10-12 16:52.
How many Muslim women have you actually met? I doubt you have spoken to one, let alone kissed one. Which is why, no doubt, you consider yourself an expert on the subject.
Most educated Muslim women do not consider themselves oppressed at all. This is a delusional fantasy created to give a false moral superiority to Socialists and other quack thinkers.
In fact, most of the western converts to Islam are from three groups: white women, blacks, and criminals, in that order.
You sanctimoniously refer to: anti-female opinions that seem to be bubbling up from under the surface in this debate? Do you actually know what you mean here, or are you just quoting from the Leftist hymn sheet? Like so many of your generation, your basic problem is that you worship women, whilst at the same time fearing your own gender. You remain stuck in adolescence. If this was still the 1970s, you'd be wearing lipstick, pink shirts, and buying David Bowie records.
I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the "anti-female opinions" allegation whenever an attempt is made to discuss women from a philosophical and biological point of view, as opposed to the usual Marxist inspired junk (e.g., oppressed minority, civilising, more intelligent). It falls into the same category as "racist." I don't know what University or College you attended, but you've certainly been inculcated with the usual and predictable claptrap social-science theories.
not by staying at home and having babies like some in this forum seem to think is their best contribution ... actually, with the anaemic birthrates western Europe has long suffered, having babies would be their best way of contributing to the protection of their culture and traditions. It is western woman's palpable failure to follow her biology, which has helped cause our present dilemmas.
Muslim women are clearly
Submitted by Voyager on Thu, 2006-10-12 12:47.
Muslim women are clearly subjugated now. They have been ground down and brainwashed for 1000 years, or killed if they do not obey
Again I disagree. I live in the vicinity of 100.000 Muslims predominantly from Pakistan. Some of their children are wild, gang-members and druggies. The parents send their children to Pakistan to get clean - and away from the pernicious Western decadence - but heroin is much cheaper in Pakistan and easier to obtain.
The daughters enjoy freedom in many cases and some pay only lip service to their parents' value system, move away and assimilate. The less well-educated cannot, but the males want submission ("Islam") but get lippy westernised women - so they import women from Pakistan, making sure they are young, speak no English, have "traditional values" so they do not see other men, and get a good dowry in return for the British residence permit a 'worthless' daughter can be exported for from a patriarchal society.
Keep her pregnant, make sure the benefits and tax credits are claimed, that only Urdu speaking health visitors can come near her, and that she only watched SatTV in Urdu, and have your mother keep an eye on her, and lock her passport away.
Why do you need to marry local women when 70% marriages in this area are to Pakistanis freshly imported as new immigrants with another extended family eligible to enter the country
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2006-10-12 07:29.
This is the first time in history when European men are by and large not coming to the aid of their women.
Certainly, a cadre of homosexual Feminists is supportive of non-White immigration, ostensibly to: (a) "get back at" European/White men, and/or (b) increase competition over and harassment of future supporters, and/or (c) use radical Muslim men to drive women away from all men in general.
However, the vast majority of women are disturbed by the non-White men in Europe, especially by their constant harassment. One German girl commented to me that the slang for Turk meant "criminal." Her and her friends had to flee the advances of Africans, Arabs, and even some South Americans who were even willing to praise Hitler (sieg heil and salute incl.) to get their attention.
While women are more forgiving and nurturing than men on average, I believe that when the time comes, they will be alongside their men. But how much Islamism, bombings, rapings, murders, theft, arson, marauding gangs, etc., will we tolerate before we take action? If European men won't stand up, why should the women?
And those that end up with illegitimate mixed children from different men will have to wait in the welfare line as they have always done.
Submitted by Voyager on Thu, 2006-10-12 07:50.
If the Left used Gramscian approaches to undermine White Males and the Judaeo-Christian Culture why not adopt their methods to bring Islam to the point of assimilation ?
Surely encouragement of women's rights in Islam, and an intensive drive to liberate Muslim gays from the control of the imam would explode the current situation. The internal frustrations of Islamic areas are focused against the host population, but why not turn it inwards.
Active support of women's groups and gays within the Muslim areas would embarrass the Left and allow a wedge to be driven along a "diversity" axis.
The aim must be to fragment what appears uniform and undermine the seemingly monolithic blocs by freeing these groups from the isolationism they face within the controlling structures of tribal Islam
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Thu, 2006-10-12 07:17.
"The oft-quoted American Constitution was never drafted to ensure equality between the sexes. The Bible defines the proper way to achieve "equality." "
I am not interested in what the American Constitution and Holy Bible have to say. I am generally against constitutions, and regard Christianity as an important mythology in Western culture.
"...these...and others who are similarly quoted, only appear great because their presence coincided with great times."
This arguably applies to nearly all historical figures.
"Women are not oppressed my friend."
Really? Nor were non-Russians in the USSR, or Black slaves in the United States, or aboriginals in Australia and the Americas right?
Women's subordination to men is virtually universal throughout human history, not bounded by ethnicity/race, religion, geography, or socio-economics.
Your industrial worker vs. housewife example is a narrow one. This issue is far too complex and multi-faceted to cover in a single or even in a dozen posts here.
And I am not arguing for the substantive equality of Affirmative Action, but the formal equality of equal wages for equal work.
Women are an integral part of any society, and those that marginalize and/or discriminate against them truly suffer for it.
Another head in the sand
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2006-10-11 23:00.
You too are engaging in wishful thinking.
The "New Belgians" were NOT created by the "stroke of a pen". In fact, their "creation" was the end-result of a cultural process for which the ideological and political foundations were built over several decades. Cultures do not change overnight, and cultural 'reversal' is exceedingly rare. The more common phenomenon in history is that cultures evolve over time in ways that contain the seeds of their own destruction. In other words, history shows that civilisation does not resemble to an upward slope, but rather to cyclical movements of rise and decline.
Head in the sand
Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2006-10-11 22:44.
@ Imhough 1
You are engaging in wishful thinking. It is almost the opposite of what you say. Indeed, there is little doubt that the naive-left agenda - including multicul illusions and immigration policies - of the past quarter century was greatly strengthened by the growing 'feminisation' of western politics. If all those "educated capable women" were not able to resist such illusions when it was still 'safe' to show some backbone, what makes you believe that they will be able to do so today when it is increasingly personally dangerous in Europe to do so. A much more likely scenario is that those western women, AS A GROUP, are much more likely to support appeasement policies than their male counterparts, thereby hastening the demise of their own democray (and thus their democratic freedoms).
In the US, sociological research shows a distinct 'gender gap', i.e. that men are more likely to support 'conservative' (or 'strong') foreign and defense policies than women. It is not likely to be much different in Europe.
By the way, Margaret Thatcher was never popular on the 'continent' in Europe, and not among British women either. She was the exception (a strong conservative among women) that confirms the rule (of women being IN GENERAL more 'liberal' (in the north-american sense) ).
You are also 'grasping at straws' w.r.t. Islam's demise. Islam has virtually always 'subjugated' the female half of its people, at least in recent centuries. That hasn't stopped its 'recent advance' in a political sense. Societies need to belief in something to survive. By contrast, those who believe-in-nothing face 'decadence', i.e. they are not willing to sacrifice for anything and will inevitably 'decline'.
immigrant suffrage in Vienna/Austria
Submitted by Lamedon on Wed, 2006-10-11 15:22.
Funny enough, have you known that even socialists in Austria attempted to pass suffrage for foreigners in Austrian capital Vienna? It was in 2002/2003 and in fact the coalition from Greens and Socialists succeeded against the oposition of Austrian Freedom Party and People's party (conservatives).
But to great grief for red - green comrades Austrian Supreme Court shot their child down in flames. Unconstitutional!
The story is here
According to Austrian
Submitted by Lamedon on Wed, 2006-10-11 14:42.
According to Austrian Freedom Party politician who cites Flemish sources it has been 'created' 90.000 new Belgians in Antwerpen by perverting both electoral and citizenship laws since 2000. The overwhelming majority of those new voters are from Maghreb and equatorial Africa.
Freedom Party article in German
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2006-10-11 06:58.
While I believe that Feminism is as destructive as chauvinism to Western society, except in the area of wage-parity and formal gender equality, I do not share your visceral distrust of women in positions of authority.
Certainly, lesbian Feminists cannot comment with any vestige of neutrality or fairness on matters of gender equality or heterosexuality, any more than a Muslim can effectively represent a Christian democratic party. However, Europe (esp. the Nordic countries) have a rich history of relatively good (compared to other regions) gender relations, and of great women in positions of authority e.g. Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth, Catherine de Medici, Katherine the Great, etc. Formal gender equality, though far from perfect, is a European value or at least a Northern European one.
Surely the few marginalized Feminist lesbians advocating for the removing of urinals in male WCs cannot compare to the historical oppression that women have faced in Europe (e.g. witch burning), or the the current disparity in wages, divorce settlements, single motherhood etc.?
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Wed, 2006-10-11 07:25.
I did not expect you would share my ... as you have put it: "visceral" distrust of women in positions of authority. But, I remain suspicious of gender equality being framed by political and economic dogma. The oft-quoted American Constitution was never drafted to ensure equality between the sexes. That has been achieved by a series of post-war, politically inspired amendments led by radical leftist members of the Supreme Court.
The Bible defines the proper way to achieve "equality."
We all know about Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth, Catherine de Medici, Katherine the Great, et al. Joan of Arc was a failure, and Katherine also liked to play with well-hung horses. With the exception of Queen Elizabeth I, these names, and others who are similarly quoted, only appear great because their presence coincided with great times. No female has ever fashioned a culture to a higher level, although men's devotion to one may have inspired such achievements. It is this dynamic that confuses you.
Women are not oppressed my friend. Whilst parts of what you write are good & commonsense, you still have at least one big toe firmly planted in Marxist/Gramscian mumbo-jumbo. Women can easily be made to appear oppressed simply by forcing them (thru resocialization) to act like men and aspire to men's rewards. Oppression then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Remember, when women were "tied to the kitchen sink," men were tied to something worse: the steel-mill or coal-face.
Widespread, single motherhood, which you so casually throw into the debate, is a direct consequence of this same gender subversion, as are acrimonious divorce settlements.
Is there a moral here for you? Yes. Unplant your big toe, and learn to walk properly.
Western women will be our last and best defence against Islam
Submitted by lmhough1 on Wed, 2006-10-11 20:30.
In the coming conflict between Islam and the West, I believe that one of the best, maybe the deciding, advantage the West will have is our class of educated capable women who would rather die than live and have their daughters live in a world where the only female role is as uneducated veiled breeding machines and outlets for male rage and impotence. If Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of England now, I suspect things would be somewhat different, for the better, in England, Europe, Afganistan, and maybe Iraq.
It may also end up being the downfall of Islam that they condemn half their society to a life of inconsequence and servility.
Submitted by DavidE on Wed, 2006-10-11 04:35.
I think civil war is where things are heading. What is worse? A civil war that produces great damage in the country or surrerndering the country to the Arabs. I just don't think that what is going on is tolerable. The native Flemish population is being forced out of Brussels and Antwerp by the Arab colonists. They have to fight or their children will have no home.
Submitted by Voyager on Tue, 2006-10-10 14:47.
Whether Gladio still exists or simply needs to be recreated is another matter. Simply setting up cells of people to discuss their heritage and future is a start to building an infrastructure...........NATO apparently liked secret societies...........obviously it was important as a means of preserving our way of life against a collectivist and alien ideology bent on our destruction
Submitted by dvarek on Tue, 2006-10-10 12:08.
of indigenous people, is what i predict will happen the coming years, out of city centers such as Antwerp. And on the other hand an influx of poverty and criminal activity.
I am at the same time very much amused and sad, when i think about how the socialists & friends will counter these trends in the coming years...We'll see each other again around 2012 (if i'm still here that is).
Belgium of my past
Submitted by logicalman on Tue, 2006-10-10 08:08.
I went to university and worked there. It was a boring but peaceful country. I left for USA for "opportunities". I think I wouldn't go back to Belgium for a visit, leave alone living there. I visited Munich and Vienna last year. They're very nice cities. Much nicer than Strassbourg and Paris. Wake up Europe!
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2006-10-10 07:20.
Keep in mind the political 'sea changes' with respect to Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's Russia. A few years after being considered part of the "new wave" by various Western politicians, Germany and Italy were at war with Great Britain and the United States, and strong National Socialist and Fascist movements were suppressed in both countries e.g. Oswald Mosley and the B.U.F.
Similarly, Western politicians and the intelligentsia had praised 1920s Moscow as the future of humanity, allied themselves with Stalin during the 1940s, were terrified of the Red Army in the late 1940s-1950s, and finally started comparing Hitler and Stalin's rap sheets by the 1980s.
Already, the majority of Europeans are frustrated with the masses of non-Whites (esp. Muslims) permeating their borders. Instead of assimilating and seizing power gradually, the Muslims are far too aggressive and are merely sowing the seeds of a future Thirty-Years War, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, or whatever.
Fjordman's Eurabia III is out:
Submitted by sonomaca on Tue, 2006-10-10 07:24.
As I said on another blog:
It is no less than brilliant. He is certainly in a class by himself.
If you don't believe that European Democracy and European Civilization are on life-support, read on.
BTW, Solana says that those who oppose MORE (presumably Muslim) immigration are "racist". Your Eurocrats are not satisfied with the "slow" pace of destruction.
I would go so far as to call Fjordman's piece the EU "anti-constituion."
Interesting Commentary Part II
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2006-10-10 06:55.
@Coldsack: at this stage, I agree that armed force or at very least the threat of it, is necessary to curb Islam on European soil. However, that must be done by the law enforcement and armed services of each European state - not by vigilantes. Paramilitary forces would be a necessary evil until such time as the State can meet the "challenge." Despite the African and Arab gangs, I am still generally opposed to "the right to bear arms" being given to any person or entity other than the State.
Bureaucrats, policemen, soldiers, businessmen, analysts, advisors, and political representatives are all "normal people," and when enough crime, violence, nepotism, ghetto-ization, political interference, terrorism, etc., has been committed, the pendulum will swing.
Interesting commentary Part I
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2006-10-10 06:42.
@MI: I believe Sonomaca's example was merely hyperbole to illustrate that the power of Europe - be it economic, military, political, or some combination thereof - is to be found solely its various peoples, and the individuals who comprise these groups. If the concept of a European citizen became a non-White and/or Muslim individual than Europe would cease to exist e.g. if Turkish immigrants and their descendants were to outnumber ethnic Germans in Germany than "Germany" would lose its national identity and become merely a name on a map.
As far as a mass exodus of Europeans is concerned - it will never happen, for the peoples, lands, and cultures of Europe are inalienable short of genocide. While naiive E.U. bureaucrats may scoff at the idea, jus sanguinis and jus soli are alive and well in Eastern Europe.
Submitted by sonomaca on Tue, 2006-10-10 07:03.
My point exactly. Europeans make (er, made) Europe Europe. If the Umma is extended to include Europe in, say, 30 years' time, it will be a pyrric victory. Why? The only ethnic Europeans left will be those too old or too unskilled to leave. The rest will be not in Central Asia but in the US, Australia, NZ, Canada.
I think the more realistic outcome, barring a mass expulsion (which is highly unlikely given the rich source of votes provided by immigrants to the left wing parties intent on destroying European Civilization), is a balkanized Europe full of mini-states, some Muslim and some "ethnic" European.
The Europeans loathe Israel, with its West Bank/Gaza problems. But, Guess what guys? That's Europe circa 2035.
What Then ??
Submitted by panamboy on Tue, 2006-10-10 05:57.
So when were are up to our ears with Islam, we either leave or live the life of Dhimmitude. When the Muslims become the majority, they will do what they have always done continuing waring among them selves. What foreign friendly country will come to our aid. "China"?
Submitted by DO on Tue, 2006-10-10 06:23.
It may appear a long shot and somewhat fantastical at present but perhaps not impossible in the long run, certainly in view of the rapid rate of Christianisation of the population. Allegedly thousands of Chinese are turning Pentecostal every day. Admitted, that is underground Christianisation far from the public eye and that of the Party and I know that in the long run we are all dead, but think of it. Thousands of Chinese are turning Pentecostal every day (yes, day). Eventually something will have to give. Perhaps that is the ally (some in) the West has (have) been hoping for.
Submitted by Voyager on Tue, 2006-10-10 06:41.
WHy not simply return to Majoritarian Rule and stop kow-towing to minorities. It is farcical how people throw up their hands in defeat because of a few noisy Muslims.
It is within the capacity of Europe to remove all Muslims from the MIddle East - there are only about 100 million excluding Iran. Europe has enormous power. If Europe expelled Muslims noone in the world could challenge it; it would send shockwaves as others emulated Europe.
The only people to live in fear in Europe are Muslims, the backlash could be dramatic and unstoppable. Those who talk of abandoning Europe are the same people who retreated every time and let Europe decline.
The political leadership is clueless because they are civil servants - administrators not leaders - but to think of giving away the world's richest continent to heathen hordes is a sign of a dead civilisation. Muslims are the weakest invader Europe has ever faced.
An Excellent Voyage
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Tue, 2006-10-10 12:15.
We still have to cross the Rubicon. As I and many others have already pointed out, our biggest obstacle is the 5th column that presently occupy our cultural institutions. Examples: (1) Britain employs immigrants to judge immigrant applications in its Croydon office; (2) the rise of female head-mistresses in British schools correlates with a dramatic fall in discipline; (3) Publishers refuse to publish books that challenge the PC status quo.
It really shouldn't be difficult to march into Universities (Humanities Faculties) up and down the country, enter Professor's offices, and tell them to pack their bags and get out, right there and then.
The majority of Muslims are enjoying a parasitic existence. Therefore, the justification for expelling them already exists.
As for Muslim countries with oil reserves, there is an argument which posits that oil & gas reserves belong to all humanity equally, and not just to the elites who dominate the respective populations. After all, oil & gas deposits were formed long before man walked the earth, and even longer before the nation state (or Islam) came into existence. So therefore ...
Removing women from high political office in the West might be the proper way to begin turning our situation around. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been an ineffectual (almost disastrous) representative of Western interests, as I predicted she would be (in writing at FrontPage Magazine) soon after she was appointed.
Submitted by Voyager on Tue, 2006-10-10 13:07.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been an ineffectual (almost disastrous) representative of Western interests
It is interesting to see James Baker being brought back into the loop
giving up and leaving Europe
Submitted by lmhough1 on Tue, 2006-10-10 10:26.
I agree that if the will the can found to fight, Muslims are a relatively weak enemy that is likely to cave at the sight of real opposition (as bullies often do). But the West's political system is so weak and divided against itself - it seems impossible to imagine a return to the kind of resilience that fought and defeated the fascists 60 years ago, and communism after that.
The other thing I see is that within the small circle of people like us who visit the same web sites, communicate across the world about this issue, and are ready to fight politicially or more, we have succeeded in convincing each other that we are right. But looking at my friends, family, colleagues, and the stuff published in papers and uttered by my politicians...... I think the so called "backlash" is far from happening. These sheep are still sleeping, and I can't see how they will wake up before they are first sheared and then slaughtered.
Europe vs. US
Submitted by sonomaca on Tue, 2006-10-10 10:55.
I would say this issue is of much greater interest here in the states. Fallaci's "Force of Reason" got as high as #4 on Amazon, and Robert Spencer's "Truth about Muhammad" is at #19 right now and will probably go higher once he hits the talk show circuit. It should be noted that these books are from niche rather than major publishers, so no big marketing campaigns and yet they top the charts.
Democracy with the broad
Submitted by coldsack on Tue, 2006-10-10 05:10.
Democracy with the broad suffrage we have at present is not compatable with the nation state. Why? Political parties are profit maximizing organizations devoted to remaining in power. If the easiest way they can do that is by encouraging mass immigration, they will always do so, even though it has horrifying consequences for the nation they ostensibly represent.
Since the Socialists have managed to immigrate so many into Antwerp, I am afraid that Belgium is doomed unless the Belgians can manage to find it in their hearts to muster armed resistance ASAP.
The failings of democracy...
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2006-10-09 22:55.
Unfortunately, J.F.K. did the "same thing" with the Peurto Ricans as the Belgian government is doing with immigration, to gain votes for short-term electoral gains.
I'm afraid that Western democracy is not based upon compromise or consensus, but upon a select few who engineered it, from which everything else follows e.g. Kemal Ataturk (Turkey), the Founding Fathers (US), Cromwell (England), the Allied Control Commission (West Germany), etc.
Every now and then, Western nation-states have needed a strong leader to halt the factional infighting and reset the nation on its correct course - often up the centre.
The time for true leadership has come again in the face of globalization, over-population, and environmental degredation. Indeed it was Churchill himself who once remarked that if Great Britain ever found itself in the state of 1920s Germany, that he would welcome "someone like Hitler" to bring it out of those depths.
Submitted by Freedom on Mon, 2006-10-09 17:52.
The Parti Socialiste has proven once again that socialism, in its classical sense, is far removed today from its real purpose. The party is more interested in perpetuating its power than it is in the greater good of the Belgian people.
By having extremist Muslims run and be elected on the Socialist slate, the party not only subverts the traditional Socialist agenda, not only bring about its own eventual destruction, it irresponsibly endangers the Belgian majority and eventually the rest of Europe. So much for corrupt politics, so much for political greed!
Freedom isn't just the right to do as one pleases, freedom carries responsibility and maintaining freedom is a never ending job.
Is Democracy Doomed?
Submitted by DavidE on Mon, 2006-10-09 16:18.
Can democracy work when parties conduct such reckless actions to gain votes? In order to gain votes to stay in power for 15-20 years, the Belgian socialists are selling out the future of the country.
Basically, the Socialists are supporting an immigration and welfare system to undermine the country, knowing that the course of action that they are taking is a complete disaster.
Maybe if VB stops insisting on separation of Flanders, it could stop this. The natives have to be unified to stop the Socialist Quislings.
Can You Identify Any Nation That Is Truly Democratic?
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Mon, 2006-10-09 18:08.
DavidE ... Your query starts from the premise democracy exists. But, where?
Surely, all we have today is the illusion of democracy. Having an opportunity to vote every 4 years or so does not define or guarantee a democracy. I believe they vote in Nigeria and South Africa but what does that tell us about citizen representation?
Democracy is the will of informed and educated people, as expressed through their elected representatives, and exercised in a purpose built forum. Yet, Europe is awash with left-leaning regimes that only pay lip-service to democratic symbolism, whilst they busy themselves with the implementation of hidden agendas predicated upon their uncompromising ideology.
One of the fundamental mistakes we have made (I believe) is to give the franchise to people who are emotionally unprepared for such responsibilities. In other words, we have devalued the vote. Women under the age of 25, and men under the age of 21, should not be allowed to vote. University students of any age should be barred from voting. Immigrants must wait 10 years.
There are sound psychological and biological reasons for these higher thresholds, and prior to 1930 in Britain, both higher minimum voting ages, and a gender differential, applied. Life wasn't perfect, but at least we had a functioning democracy and Parliament back then. If such "old fashioned" rules were re-applied, we would begin to starve the puerile "trendy" dogmas of their oxygen.
Submitted by Voyager on Mon, 2006-10-09 19:31.
The aim of every Capitalist is to become a Monopolist and exercise Economic Power. The aim of every Socialist is to gain State Power and never to lose it.
To preserve its hold on power and its ability to dispense patronage Socialist regimes always expand the public payroll, co-opt anyone who can deliver block votes, and seek to find a scapegoat who can be blamed for "sabotage" and cajoled into paying tribute.
The true Liberals saw themselves as preventing the Capitalist Monopoly by ensuring Competition and resisting the Socialist Collectivism by keeping the masses happy.
The emergence of Consumerist Democracies has made economic welfare the highest good and now without the embarrassment of Socialist Economics in COMECON the SED type functionaries of the old GDR can focus on cultural conformity and mind control.............on Education to form the New Citizen, on laws to ensure Preferred Behaviour, on a New Cultural Order designed with nothing but loyalty to the Collective.
Belgium's Socialist Party was the one working as an adjunct of the Mafia with its hit-men and corruption and shady dealings............it is a matrix of corruption and obligation to enmesh any threat to its leading position as vanguard of the politicial class determined to be entrenched in the money mines
These are very distubing numbers
Submitted by lmhough1 on Mon, 2006-10-09 22:04.
If I have the numbers right, then, Muslims now form 7/55 = 13% of elected representatives in Antwerp.
This is stunning! I had not realized the problem had reached this extent. And still most Belgians, and Europeans, deny what is going on in their cities.... In another two elections, with non-muslims fleeing the city, and the muslim population continuing to grow, Antewerp will be in muslim control.
I wonder if higher levels of government realize, or care, about this. Surely they must.
numbers not right
Submitted by Paul Belien on Mon, 2006-10-09 22:28.
The exact number is 9/55. Seven Socialists and two Christian-Democrats.
Belgium Test Case
Submitted by sonomaca on Mon, 2006-10-09 22:13.
It will be interesting to see what the Muslims do with control once they have it. They have to be careful not to alienate the educated private-sector workers and companies which, if they flee the country, will seriously weaken welfare state finances. If Sharia law or watered-down version of the same were to be imposed, that would probably be the last straw for the educated "ethnic" Belgians, who would certainly follow their Dutch compatriots to greener pastures.
Greener pastures where?
Submitted by lmhough1 on Mon, 2006-10-09 23:29.
I doubt that Islamists will care much about "preserving the welfare state", except to the extent necessary to prevent political mobilization against them before they achieve power.
Islamic countries are the poorest in the world precisely because dogma overcomes everything else, to the extreme detriment of education, productivity, and commercial success. Prosperity is irrelevant. They will care about power, and do what it takes to achieve it, but once it is achieved....
Where can educated non-muslim Europeans flee to? Has it come already to people planning to flee? Will enough people be willing to fight?
In an equal fight between a group of Islamists accustomed to self-sacrifice (as they demonstrate daily with their lives, and the lives of their women and children, for which they appear to have no regard) vs a bunch of soft Europeans who cannot even now comprehend what is going on, obviously the Islamists will win.
More greener pastures
Submitted by DO on Tue, 2006-10-10 03:48.
Australia will have you too, I believe, although I am not sure how much money you have to bring with you.
Beware. The vigourous Australian, very Anglo-Saxon can-do hands-on no-nonsense mindset might not be suitable to the regressing, continually rationalising, psychologically frail, prissy and dilly-dallying mind of the Old World.
Then again, you can't have it all, mate.
Submitted by DO on Tue, 2006-10-10 02:57.
'Where can educated non-muslim Europeans flee to?'
To the Far East (if they'll have you). I did. Physically I left Flanders more than a decade and a half ago but in my head I had left well over a decade before that.
I consider Europe to be no more than a living museum, adrift, uninspired, increasingly collectivist, soft, spiritually stale, ridden with white guilt, misguidedly apologetic (the shameful tribulations around the Crusades are a case in point) and appeasingly bent on self-destruction.
You'll find no sympathy here. Let alone respect.
Submitted by sonomaca on Tue, 2006-10-10 01:40.
Submitted by sonomaca on Tue, 2006-10-10 01:40.
Without Europeans, Europe is just a big, green plot of land. If Europeans all got up and moved to Central Asia, then that region would be an economic powerhouse and Europe would become just another authoritarian Muslim backwater.
Another Example of Muddled Thinking
Submitted by Mission Impossible on Tue, 2006-10-10 04:40.
sonomaca ... your thinking is way too shallow. You have completely overlooked the contribution the environment inevitably makes to the success of any civilization.
Central Asia is already environmentally degraded: the Aral Sea drying up and an expanding Gobi Desert are just two examples. Generally speaking, this huge area is semi-arid and cannot sustain normal farming / food production. Furthermore, the winters are very severe, with temperatures falling to minus 25 degrees Centigrade.
If the Europeans "got up and moved to Central Asia," so to speak, then it would be a disaster for much of the rest of the world also. You have not yet understood just how calamitous any loss of sovereignty by Europeans over European soil will be for humanity, let alone for Western ideals.
Submitted by markpetens on Mon, 2006-10-09 17:56.
If the Vlaams Belang wants to win in 2007, in the federal elections, I think they have to do more to win away VLD voters (the liberal democrats, who lost heavily yesterday). The VB stanch on immigration is well known. What they need is a decent free market economic programme. Unless that is realized, voters will stay with the VLD instead.
I doubt the VB will -ever- stop insisting on separation of Flanders from the artificial body that is Belgium.
" hassle-free Belgian citizenship "
Submitted by Gilbert De Bruycker on Mon, 2006-10-09 14:18.
When "rights" are bestowed on those who put in jeopardy the cultural integrity of our society and by their presence impair its cohesion, there is deliberate erosion of the sense of nationhood.
In this light, to confer " hassle-free Belgian citizenship " on those immersed in their own cultures is a violation of the purpose of the law!
We may think that we have no option. But once launched on this course the perversity becomes total when laws are passed on behalf of Muslim immigrants to take away natural rights from indigenous citizens. We are then plainly in the presence of arbitrary rule.
Could women preferences be an explanation?
Submitted by Lamedon on Mon, 2006-10-09 13:28.
That is indeed very worrysome development. As just many other cities Antwerepen is close to be turned into slum.
But to the overal results: to my knowledge parties like Vlaams Belang usually attract significantly less votes from female voters. This was the case of Austrian Freedom Party one week ago.
And maybe Vlaams Belang should modify its strategy and seek more cooperation with democratic and non-violent parties emerging in Europe ( Sverigedemokraterna, British National Party). I believe that Vlaams Belang could not change the future of its country even in case of victory in the next elections. We all know what happened to Austria after Freedom party electoral success few years ago.
Submitted by USAntigoon on Mon, 2006-10-09 12:43.
As long as the "Cordon Sanitaire" exists, the Vlaams Belang party will never succeed. They have to prove themself by becoming part of the governing bodies (towns, cities etc..) Their strategy should be more aimed at "breaking up" this corrdon sanitaire..Don't they have enough courts in the EU to get that resolved one way or the other..?
By their example, the "average voter" will understand that the VB is more then just an "extreme" right wing party..Only then the voter will support the VB platform..
Key to Socialism
Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Mon, 2006-10-09 11:42.
Free money and easy jobs from the Goverment!!! Always a vote getter! As in Sweden when everyone is on the dole in some way they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In the US this seems to be changing as more and more people quit the office world and start small businesses. Even so, pro-business low tax agendas are difficult to get through Congress.
Submitted by Cogito on Mon, 2006-10-09 11:32.
Last Year it was 1934, according to Paul Beliën. It is now clearly 1935.
congratulations, Alexandra Colen, with your results in and around Mol.
I see a new evolution: Where up to some time ago, some people foresaw a 2-party system emerge in Belgium from the Cordon Sanitaire, by all politically correct parties being forced to coagulate against the Vlaams Belang, the possibility now emerges that not a coagulation of traditional parties will form 1 party against the Vlaams Belang, but that all traditional parties except the socialist party will evaporate and that the Vlaams Belang will see itself opposed to only the socialists, which, on top, will not be able anymore to be secular and ecological socialists the way they want and hope according to their post-cold-war ideology in which they still claim the highest morality, but will be transformed into an Islamic party forcing dhimmitude from the indigenous population by just doing that what both socialists and muslims have been doing since their conception: robbing the productive class from 50% of their revenue.
Submitted by Brigands on Mon, 2006-10-09 11:16.
That's what I'm thinking. There's a scary element to the evolution which I will refer to as the Balkanisation. Most likely the term doesn't quite cover the load. In essence the indigenous population retreats, their numbers decline whilst the government allows more immigrants to poor into the region (populations that expand rapidly). It will 'disrupt' the balance and quite possibly lead to ethnic violence on a larger scale. Immigration as a control weapon, works in Brussels and it will work elsewhere and it will protect the Belgian state as well. The question is: was a battle lost or is the war being lost.