La Turquie? Non Merci!

Several weeks ago I posted a photo of the Eiffel Tower dressed up in the Turkish flag, similar to the photo at left. Some readers wanted to know if this was a an official preview photo or a photoshop production. Its purpose was to announce to the people of France that their country was welcoming La Saison de la Turquie - a 10-month celebration of Turkish culture - by lighting up the Tower in red and white, with the Turkish flag superimposed.
I still don't know exactly where that photo came from, but the Eiffel Tower was indeed lit up from October 6 to October 11, in red and white lights, BUT without the flag superimposed (see photo below). This reduced considerably the shock of seeing the flag of a Muslim country superimposed on the French monument, but in no way reduced the reality that the French government, despite protests to the contrary from Sarkozy, favors Turkish accession. (Some objected to the absence of the flag on grounds that red and white could refer to other countries such as Poland.)



This video from the Bloc Identitaire, an identitarian movement with branches all over France, shows the action taken by the Bloc on the occasion of the lighting of the Eiffel Tower. Translation is not necessary. You will see that the protestors projected onto the wall of the Palais de Chaillot the message, "Turkey? No thank you!" Others across the way chanted "Turkey? no thank you!" and "Turkey, out of Europe!"


Civitas, an association of young Catholics who promote their faith and oppose Turkey posted this account of a small-scale protest on October 9. The low attendance was disappointing:

Civitas-Paris led a protest against the lighting of the Eiffel Tower in the colors of the Turkish flag. Around the Tower, a banner was unfurled: "No to Christianophobic Turkey." Five French flags bearing the symbol of the Sacred Heart were flying in the wind. Only about 50 persons answered our call to rally. Passers-by stopped to watch. A young activist speaking through a megaphone explained the reasons for our protest.
Soon, "young people" appeared on the scene. The defenders of the Turkish cause tried to intimidate us. As for the police, an officer in civilian clothes said, without batting an eyelash, that nothing could be done to ensure our safety, despite the fact that we had been authorized to demonstrate. Too bad. A few determined young men promised to protect our gathering. The police officer showed mild appreciation, thinking he was dealing with gentle impressionable Catholics. Such was not the case.
After speaking through the megaphone, the participants began the rosary in remembrance of the victory at Lepanto. Tourists filmed the scene. Passers-by encouraged and congratulated us. We stayed for one hour. Our protest was symbolic. An expression by Catholics who refuse to resign themselves. An expression by Catholics who will not abandon the terrain.

The rest of the article is devoted to facts about Turkey and why it should not be allowed to join the EU. This item is important:

Turkey has seventy million inhabitants (ninety-five million in 2020), plus two hundred million Turkish-speaking peoples as far as Sakhalin Island. For Turkey, any Turkophone is considered to be a Turk. According to an official study, one third of the Turks would emigrate immediately, were Turkey admitted into Europe. (...)

It is often overlooked that Turkey is not confined to Turkey proper, but includes several other Turkish-speaking lands, who have easy and rapid access to Turkish nationality. Yves Daoudal mentions this in a recent post, dated October 9. The article focuses on the recent visit to Paris by Turkish president Abdullah Gül:

Nicolas Sarkozy and Abdullah Gül agreed that the European question could not be resolved in the near future and that, consequently, it "should not envenom all relations between the two countries," reports Elysée. They want "to avoid having this issue weigh like lead on everything else and thus block relations between the two on other topics."
According to Elysée, France proposed "a Franco-Turkish cooperation on nuclear issues, not only in Turkey, but also in the countries of Central Asia": an official acknowledgment that the Turkish Empire extends into Central Asia, and that these countries will be part of the European Union when Turkey joins (in accordance with the agenda now being carried out, despite Sarkozy's façade of opposition.)

Among those Central Asian countries are Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Those interested can consult this Wikipedia page on Turkish languages.
Another post from the same Yves Daoudal web page cited above quotes an Armenian website, Pan Armenian:

(...) The Turkish prime minister Recep Tayip Erdogan declared to the daily Milliyet that the design of Turkey is to live in peace with all countries and to restore the power of the Ottoman Empire...
"I believe that each family must have at least three children. We believe in the future of Turkey and we wish everyone to believe in it."
He also described Turkish-Russian relations as "strategic": "Russia is our partner. Commerce between our two countries has reached forty billion dollars." (...)

An article in Le Figaro illustrates the degree to which Turkey has implanted itself on German soil:

The leaders of the Turkish community in Germany believe they have found a solution to help the integration of Muslims: the adoption of Islamic holidays for all German students, whatever their religion. The proposal has set off a fierce debate in Germany, where the authorities are attempting to help the integration of immigrants, with the hope of compensating in part for a rapidly declining birth rate. (...)

The article quotes Kenan Kolat, president of the Turkish Community in Germany:

"It would be nice if they would grant a day off to all German children for the end of Ramadan (...) It would be a sign of tolerance (...) German society ought to extend its hand to help integration." He added that many Turks agree to have a Christmas tree, even though theoretically they are opposed to it, "out of love for their children."

The figure below, showing the number of Muslims in Germany, comes from the Figaro article.

I'll close this article with a quote from the paper publication Minute featured at Le Salon Beige:

Gustave Eiffel could not have imagined that in June 1940 after the invasion of France by Germany, Adolph Hitler would immortalize himself by standing on the Trocadéro, with the Eiffel Tower in the background, creating the most symbolic image possible of the conquest of France. Nor could he have imagined that in October 2009, his edifice would be lighted in the colors of a country which (...) has become a demographic and religious threat.


Note: As I post, the most recent item on Daoudal's web page (link above) says that Angela Merkel has agreed NOT to oppose negotiations on Turkey, and will agree to a "privileged partnership" should the negotiations fail. To put it differently, she is a carbon copy of Sarkozy.


Our origins # 2

@ Capo

While we agree on 'who lost the election', we disagree on 'natural selection'.  

The kapitein's postings on TBJ are among the 'better' ones.  They are useful, because they reveal stark differences among different strands of conservatism within Western civilisation.  Such differences better be debated rather than swept under the rug.  And, perhaps the crucial difference concerns the distinction between 'race' and 'culture', i.e. the meaning or understanding of 'judeo-christian' morality and of its survival.  

The Kapitein's postings are also indicative of the growing cultural rift between Europe and America, which in my opinion is only temporarily (not for the first time) and superficially concealed by the election of Obama.  Lovers of freedom, everywhere, better prepare for that reality.  Of course, the issue becomes moot if both sides of the Atlantic end up either going the 'Putin way' or the UN-way (i.e. chaos).  


Our Origins


Will then remain a mystery, since your contunuing posts on TBJ refutes Natural Selection/Survival of the Fittest.



I apologize for offending your grammer check, I was in in a bit of a rush this morning. Agnew was great, he simply made the mistake of thinking he could do political fund raising the same way democrats do it and have the press ignore it. Hence,calling out the press was probably not the smartest move possible, though it was fun to watch.


Romney may indeed have won, if Huckabee hadn't done so well in Iowa, up until that point it did seem the Republican establishment including conservatives were reconciling themselves to the Mormon candidate. But Iowa did change the dynamics of the race. And we ended up with everybody's not even 2nd choice but probably 3rd choice.

The Germans # 4

1) As far as "brother Frans" is concerned the issue was not Palin, nor election analysis of the last US presidential election, etc...The issue was the Kapitein's applying "hilarious" to Palin, thereby revealing his 'capture' by the dominant naive-leftist media coverage. This, coupled with European ignorance of American 'religiosity' and 'exceptionalism', led to the Kapitein's now familiar parroting of endless mainstream media 'talking points'. 

2) The Kapitein would be well advised to read the following recently-published book by the editor and by the chief Washington correspondent of The Economist magazine: "God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is changing the World", by John Micklethwaith and Adrian Wooldridge (Penguin Press, 2009).   As a product of 'Old Europe' himself, brother Frans understands better than most the prejudices under which the Kapitein labors and his inability to mentally grasp the 'marriage' of capitalism and religion in the USA.  By 'disestablishing' religion, rather than destroying it (as happened largely in both Eastern and Western Europe), the Founding Fathers of the American Republic forced it to become enterprising. 

3) If the book is too long (416 pages), the kapitein might content himself with reading the review article in the September/October issue of The American Interest magazine (a journal of quality on Policy, Politics and Culture), by Clifford Orwin, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto (and visiting fellow at Stanfords' Hoover Institution) who, as a Canadian, might be more acceptable to the kapitein.  It might, inshallah, help free him of his dominant media-induced biases.

4) Capodistrias has outclassed himself again. Anybody who can write a sentence like: "The former investment fund megamillion and gov of the people's republic of Mass vs the minister/gov from the ozarks who played a mean Leonard Skinner and can joke around with anyone and never abandon his core conservative social principles", must have been a speech writer for Nixon's former Vice President Agnew.  However, I must remind him that (fiscal conservative and mormon) Romney came very close to winning the Republican nomination last year, and certainly ahead of the baptist Ozark Guy who is now fast becoming a TV celebrity at Fox.  I agree with Capodistrias, though, that it was McCain who lost the election, and not Palin.

5) Finally, one illustration of the Kapitein's imprisonment by the leftist media can be found in his false claim of "catholics voting mostly Democrat".  That is not what the serious research shows.  It would seem that the catholic vote was more or less evenly split.  This is not an important point, of course, but it illustrates that much of the media today operates on the principle of 'a lie frequently repeated becomes the truth', for they are certainly no longer interested in any objective observable and empirically-tested 'truth'.            


Quite frankly, your woeful ignorance and irrational comments make me wonder what gene pool you came from.  If there was ever a case against intelligent design, Capo, it is you.

A Blisstering Response!

Ignorance may be bliss, but woe to those who rely on it in a debate.

Look at the the numbers in recent elections for real Catholics - RC ;-) and CINOs, Catholics in Name Only. Tell me when you the light the candle.

And yes, French Canadians did manage to make their way into the gene pool in the heavily populated NE United States. I would explain the mechanism of how ethnic interaction, mixing  occurrs but the concept of 1 plus 1 , frankly appears to be beyond your grasp. Or, at least, I hope so for the fate of Europe's gene pool.

The Slight on Brother FRANS

I wasn't aware that Marc Frans is beyond reproach.  Please accept my sincerest apologies for questioning the dear leader and guide of the conservative revolution...


Also, thank you for enlightening me as to the Christian Right.  I was hitherto unaware that French-Canadians have such electoral clout in the United States.  Might I suggest a rethink of your conservative base?  Last I checked, the majority of Hispanics voted for Obama and Biden, and neither the Irish nor Italians are bastions of ethnic support for the Republican Party.


If one were to analyze electoral inclinations according to religion, one would find Catholics mostly voting Democrat, and Protestants tending to vote Republican.  This "tending" is due to the large numbers of nominal mainline Protestants, as opposed to fervent Evangelicals, etc.

Kapitein your feathers are showing


Complete nonsense, from Wagner to Gilbert and Sullivan. 

I would expect a site that is the voice of conservatism in Europe to have a more knowledgeable, regular poster/commentator on American conservatism. And questioning Marcfrans' familiarity with American politics is utterly ridiculous, I don't always agree with Marcfrans, but he is extremely well-informed and knowledgeable about American politics.

The Chrsitian Right would have stayed home in large numbers, especially the Catholic contingent, or found some symbolic outlet to vent their frustration.The ethnic groups Irish, Polish, Italians, French-Canadians; assorted converts (total fanatics in a good cause :-) etc., who make up that sub-group are some of the most conservative and stubborn electorate in the country. They fight to the death and they take no prisoners, metaphorically speaking, you get a sense of them when Atheling's fury is unleashed on you heathens and heretics.


Interestingly, Huckabee was a favorite of a large numbers of this group. I'm not talking of the intellectual elite of the the sub-group which is often as full of themselves as the rest of America's self-identified and self-proclaimed elite. Huckabee was probably the only grassroots candidate among the Republicans who could have, and probably would have beaten Obama.

Fiscal conservatives, and 'I can't get over the Clinton' conservatives hated Huckabee with a passion and explains why McCain ended up with the nomination. Their man Romney stacked up miserably against the Huckster as they called him.

The former investment fund megamillion and gov of the people's republic of Mass vs the minister/gov from the ozarks who played a mean Leonard Skinner and can joke around with anyone and never abandon his core conservative social principles.It was really no contest.

Huckabee sent them all into a lather, that's why they tried to rally around Fred Thompson, the Faux populist, real-life Hollywoood actor and long-time Washington insider, as simply a way to undermine the grassroots surge that was going to Huckabee. Anyone but Huckabee became their objective Romney, Rudy,Thompson, even McCain.


Excuse me this is rather long,

I feel a song coming on.

Just remember this Kapitein:

Things are seldom what they seem,

Skim milk masquerades as cream;

Highlows pass as patent leathers;

Jackdaws strut in peacock's feathers.

To: Marc Frans & Capodistrias Re: McCain-Palin

M. Frans,


Again, like a trout out of the water...


I am at loss as to where you derive your US political coverage.  Clearly you did not watch any of the debates or see any of the polling statistics that both campaigns relied upon.  McCain's staff made a strategic error by not going on the offensive when Clinton and Obama were in their dogfight.  Admittedly, McCain's war chest wasn't as large as his opponents'.  But by avoiding battle until the Democrats regrouped and by hastily bringing on a vice presidential candidate who clearly was not up to the task, McCain's campaign was sunk.


Division within the Republican camp was apparent between McCain and Palin, and between each and the staffers.  You'll note that Obama's vice presidential selection was subject to equally excoriating scrutiny and rumors.






Palin certainly rallied much of the Christian Right faction of the Republican Party, but tactical victory here was strategic defeat.  These voters would have cast their votes for McCain irrespective of Palin; many undecided voters, however, were turned off by Palin.  The Democrats had an easier time of it after 8 years of Bush, and could keep their message to "hope" and "change".  The Republicans were torn by an identity crisis that continues to plague them.  Liberal urbanites who probably agreed with Republican economic policies were wary of hardline social conservatives and the Christian Right dictating the direction of the Party.  In fact both the Democrats and Republicans appear to host two distinct factions; perhaps four main parties are required?

@ Kapitein Andre

Palin had nothing to do with McCain's lost and everything to do with why he had a chance, that is  until he stood down during the financial collapse, after having just called on Americans to stand up and fight with him at a very successful convention.

The Germans # 3

How many media platitudes can be put in a single sentence: failure as a candidate, galvanizing conservatives, elections decided by independents/moderates,  McCain's staff considered her a liability (really?, you believe everything on the US in the Frankfurter Allgemeine or Der Spiegel, which means everything in the NYTimes or on CNN?)..... 

The issue is not Palin. The issue is your "hilarious", i.e. your leftist media parroting, and your poor powers of empirical observation.  I did not offer one single item of 'defense' of Palin.  I am a Romney supporter (not a Palin fan, nor a McCain fan) .

The only "knee-jerk" reaction here is the red-flag impact of Ms Palin on leftist/liberal journalists and on some misguided and misnamed Euro-'conservatives'.


Palin was a failure as vice presidential candidate.  Despite galvanizing hardline conservatives, the election was decided by independents and moderates.  Her oratory mistakes rivalled even those of Bush, and McCain's staff considered her a liability to the campaign.


Referencing "media hate" and the "orthodox-euro-line" is merely the automated response I've come to expect from you.  Conservatives shouldn't feel compelled to defend the likes of Palin and Coulter.  They are indefensible positions and detrimental to any grand strategy leading to the White House.


Is there a parrot in the room?  Indeed.  It is calling out: knee-jerk, knee-jerk

The Germans # 2

Palin was a 'success' as a town mayor, and then as a governor of Alaska.  And how could she be a "disappointment" in another job that she never held?

The use of the term "hilarious" reveals a lack of independence from the leftist media crowd.  And what has Ann Coulter got to do with anything?  More parroting of media-hate against big-mouth women who fail to toe the orthodox-euro-line?   


One does not have to be a Palin-fan to be able to recognise a parrot for a parrot.

The Germans and the French

I meant that neither the German offensives of 1914 nor 1940 would have come as a surprise to M Eiffel, contrary to Tiberge's claim.  French military adventures in Africa fail to impress me, and are part and parcel of France's neo-imperial ambitions.


As for Palin, she was a hilarious disappointment.  And yet she seemed to have such promise.  Even more ridiculous than Palin's public relations management was Ann Coulter's defense of the woman Republican.

The Germans...

...could not storm...Luxembourg today.  The obstacle is not physical, but mental. Schroeder is working for Putin, and Die Linke wants to disarm and abolish nuclear power generation.  France is one of the few Western countries whose army is doing some actual fighting today, mainly in Africa though.  The Germans have been 'emasculated', first by the Ruskies and the Yanks, and later by their own political left.   What was the name again of that female German cabinet minister (for 'development cooperation', what a misnomer!) who preferred radical islamists to Bush?  She haunts my memory, for she 'predicts' the future.  But, Merkel is wise to be 'wary' of Obama and his mentors. 

Now, how is that for 'Palinesk Alaskan'  language?  

Double Standards and Geopolitics

Germany’s acceptance into Western economic and security blocs, and access to Western aid and markets, was conditional upon Germany’s total deconstruction and renunciation of national socialism, establishment of democracy, etc. Turkiye, a formerly sworn enemy of Europe whose aggression has left an indelible mark on many European countries, is encouraged to integrate with Europe, even though it is non–European and has rejected neither supremacism (Islamic or Turkic) nor militarism e.g. “deep state”, counter–insurgency against the Kurds, etc. After forcing compliance from Germany, the EU is allowing itself to be overrun by non–Europeans, and is playing to immigrant, Turkish and Russian sensitivities. All pretensions otherwise to the contrary, France has been a promoter of Turkish integration as part of its continuing aim to resurrect its former global clout. The United States regards Turkiye as crucial to the renewed Great Game against China, Iran and Russia. The Western alignment of the Turkic countries of Central Asia is as vital to winning the Great Game as is placing Turkiye firmly in the West’s camp. Surely the Franco–Prussian War and German unification was fresh in M Eiffel’s memory. If the Germans could storm France once, they could do so again…