the radical left so despises europe that it intends to destroy it by muslim immigration …. and i have the source documents from the euro union and the euro-med “association agreements” to prove it ..
Posted by paulipoldie on January 14, 2010
sit down. read. think. and quit your damn bitching about how how hard this is, and the state of the world. just sit down. read. and, think.
what is the source of the radical left’s infatuation and courtship of islam? or, do you remember socrates “allegory of the caves?” or, who controls the dance?
the radical left i speak of resides in the united states and in europe, a species of radicals unlike any other found in the world. for the most part they suffer few material wants or privations and certainly not the imposition of any personal injustice, being if not born into privilege having attained it; they tend to be well educated and professional, and very much leaning to the public sector; and if they are outraged about the injustice and privations of this world and its systems, it is certainly not because they have suffered any of them, in any direct or personal manner. in short, they are not radicals or leftist who have grown up in squalor or who have fought against actual injustice, or protested anything that required actual physical want, hardship or risk. their suffering is the suffering of sympathy for those they posit as downtrodden.
they are those persons of whom malcom muggeridge once so acidly observed of an english royal of some degree or another, “that he was a revolutionary his entire life, and it had cost him nary a sunday chop.” they drive volvos. they eat yogurt. and they are tight with all the peeps, even those they would never invite into their homes or to their parties, especially those peeps, …. , the guilts make the bonds of understanding tighter, don’t you know. the more “unwashed,” the better.
and, it may be said of these leftists, euros or yanks, that the peeps of the world with whom they are tightest are islamic arabs, most particularly “palestinian” muslims. you would no doubt not be surprised that almost to a dead soul they condemn israel and sing paeans to the palestinians with regard to the peace process.
you might be surprised, however, to learn that euro and yank alike, they want you and i to live amongst the arabs and too of course acculturate with them, and to integrate with them into a broader cultural awareness. you might also be surprised that they want arab muslims to live among us, and that both communities of leftists, euro and yank, are promoting very dramatically increased muslim immigration into north america and europe in order to achieve that goal.
and, indeed, that the process has been ongoing, active, and more extensive than you might imagine for some time.
the european situation.
how would you feel if your government planned the immigration of 50 million north african muslim workers into your country, and neglected to tell you about it?
muslim immigration into europe raises concerns much larger than mere numbers at this point might suggest, though long term forecasts suggest that as much as 25% of europe’s population might be muslim by year 2100. indigenous europeans are to be forgiven if they feel their politicians have made accommodations to muslims that infringe upon traditional rights of free speech and political expression, as the euro parliament and national parliaments have passed legislation that limits critical opinion of the muslim religion, and has given individual muslims the right to sue if they feel the religion has been maligned. in like manner, public institutions have come under increasing pressure to accommodate and expand muslim practices while concomitantly curtailing those same services paid for by indigenous taxpayers: municipal swimming pools all over europe have curtailed services to the general public to allow muslim woman their own bathing schedules. muslim cab drivers the world over insist upon and get public footbaths to soak their weary feet, while other weary feet go weary. and, the issue of dress, particularly the wearing of traditional muslim garb has raised considerable friction, as female muslim police officers in britain, for instance, insisted on wearing muslim scarves and uniforms consistent with traditional muslim dress. and, all over europe, the presence of islam is attendant to rising crime rates, particularly violent assault, rape, and crimes of property damage: this new year’s eve in france alone, more than 1,000 cars were put to the torch by islamic thugs.
such matters have aroused increased interest, concern and opposition to further or increased muslim immigration into europe.
and, of even greater concern to europeans, is the fact that the leftist political leadership of europe works assiduously to effect increased muslim immigration, largely in ignorance of the europeans, and absent any effort to win their assent: instead, they are to be “educated” when policies are placed into effect. this is very greatly resented, as you might imagine.
the short and the sweet of it is, that the euro union has entered into a compact with a number of north african states to make operable a governmental entity called euro-med, and that a chief feature of its raison d’être and operation is a vast migration of peoples from north africa and the mediterranean basin into europe proper, and a great number of them will be muslim. pamela geller of atlasshrugs2000 has written extensively of this, here, here and here, and is a recognized authority on the subject.
her articles have told how the euro-med councils were formed and established, and that they were active, and then focused on the assertion that the euro union intends to admit nearly 50 million muslim/north african workers into the euro union by the years 2050-2060.
she does not view that prospect with enthusiasm.
and, neither do i. my concerns are several about this issue. one, is that most europeans are ignorant that this is happening. and, two, those who do know what is happening seem inclined to try and discredit these assertions by questioning the sources of pamela’s figures, to back up her claims in the posts linked above.
I thought, what better source and authority for these assertions that the horse’s mouth, that is, the official documents and statements of the euro union on such matters. as it turns out, i can demonstrate the authenticity of the figures and the scope of the european union immigration scheme, by recourse to official euro union documents.
the paris convention. on 13 july 2008, ministers of the european union and heads of other states met in paris, france and ratified a far reaching scheme, the paris summit for the mediterranean, to integrate not only the economies, but the cultures and politics of states “bordering” on the mediterranean sea along with those of the euro union. those minister agreed, as pertains to the issue of muslim immigration into europe, the following:
“euro-mediterranean heads of states and government meeting in paris on 13 july 2008, … agree to adopt the following joint declaration:
“they share the conviction that this initiative can play an important role in addressing common challenges facing the euro-mediterranean region, such as … ; migration; terrorism and extremism; as well as promoting dialogue between cultures.
“11. the barcelona process:
“the five-year work programme adopted by the 10th anniversary euro-mediterranean summit held in barcelona in 2005 (including the fourth chapter of cooperation on “migration, social integration, justice and security” introduced at that stage) and the conclusions of all ministerial meetings will remain in force. … .”
the barcelona process. the european union delegates and heads of state specifically decided that the 4th paragraph of the work programme adopted at the barcelona summit in 2005 was to remain in force and effect.
this 4th paragraph, as it is referred to in euro union documents, has far reaching language on the scale and nature of immigration sponsored into the european states by the european union: you may or may not be surprised to know that this is not very well known in europe, and you might be even more surprised to know that the euro-med organization, comprised of the euro union & north african, middle eastern and some balkan nations, is not widely known in europe. at any rate, the euro union members and the heads of the mediterranean states agreed, as to the issue of immigration into europe:
migration, social integration, justice and security
11. acknowledging that migration, social integration, justice and security are issues of common interest in the partnership, and should be addressed through a comprehensive and integrated approach, the euro-mediterranean partnership will enhance co-operation in these fields to:
(a) promote legal migration opportunities, work towards the facilitation of the legal movement of individuals, recognising that these constitute an opportunity for economic growth and a mean of improving links between countries, fair treatment and integration policies for legal migrants, and facilitate the flow of remittance transfers and address ‘brain drain’;
(a) hold a ministerial meeting to discuss all issues pertinent to migration. and hold an expert senior officials meeting to prepare the ministerial and discuss other issues of relevance.
(b) develop mechanisms for practical co-operation and sharing experience on managing migration flows humanely, deepen dialogue with countries of origin and transit and explore options for providing assistance for countries of origin and transit.
(c) promote schemes for safer, easier, less expensive channels for the efficient transfer of migrants’ remittances, encourage active contacts with expatriate communities to maintain their participation in the development process in their country of origin,
(e) promote legal migration opportunities and integration of migrants;
(f) enhance cooperation to fight illegal migration. this cooperation should involve all aspects of illegal migration, such as the negotiation of different kinds of readmission agreements, the fight against human trafficking and related networks as well as other forms of illegal migration, and capacity building in border management and migration.
(g) the euromed partners welcome the convening of a euro-african conference on migration.
pamela geller has stated in her articles “the euro-med disaster: floodgates to ruin“ and “euro-med: no, it’s not a drug, but it might kill you” that as many as 56 million legal migrant workers might be brought into europe by years 2050-2060. may this figure and the scope of such migration be confirmed via recourse to european union publications, or must it necessarily be a matter of conjecture? well, whatever level of speculation may be involved in the derivation of the figure, there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that this is a figure being reported by the euro union commission to the european union parliament, by official publication. there is no guess work or conjecture about it, pamela geller’s figures are rock solid, and it will take a hardy soul to convince informed opinion otherwise. in an official report dated 10.06.2009 to the euro parliament, the euro union commission said:
commission of the european communities
com (2009) 262 final
communication from the commission to the european parliament and council
an area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen
the foundations have been laid for a common policy on immigration. in particular,
there are rules that make legal immigration fairer and easier to understand, a
common agenda has been agreed for facilitating integration into european societies,
and stronger action is being taken against illegal immigration and human trafficking.
partnerships have also been established with non-union countries so that questions associated with migration can be managed in a concerted fashion. page 2-3
in 2006 there were 18.5 million non-eu nationals registered in the union, which is
about 3.8% of the total population. migratory pressures can be expected to grow
further. this is due to population growth and poverty in many of the countries of
origin, and to the ageing of the population of europe: between 2008 and 2060 the
number of people of working age is expected to fall by 15%, or about 50 million. page 4.
according to estimates there are about eight million illegal immigrants living in the
union, many of whom work in the informal economy. tackling the factors that
attract clandestine immigration and ensuring that policies for combating illegal
immigration are effective are major tasks for the years to come. page 4.
there it is. right in front of your eyes.
(oh, by the way, it may be interesting for you to notice that the “barroso” in the hyperlink to the above document, if you go to look at the original, is the “mr. barroso” who is the president of the european union commission. friends, communique’s don’t get any more authentic than this.)
the euro union is going to lose 50 million persons of working age in that period between now and 2060: not 50 million in population, but 50 million workers. and, those job slots are to be filled by immigrants from areas suffering from excess populations and poverty: not too many physics professors coming in.
and there is a word in the texts that i began to notice a couple of days into this, but that i haven’t mentioned yet, and that is the word “integration.” my friends, the euro union does not expect the majority of these people to go home. how do you put them back on the farm, once they’ve seen paris, indeed?
update: correction on population figures:
the wikipedia article deals with the history and evolution of the islamic religion in europe. according to the german Central Institute Islam Archive, the total number of muslims in europe in 2007 was about 53 million, including 16 million in the European Union.
no less an authority that geert wilders has been quoted as saying that by his calculation, there are no less than 50 million muslims in europe. it would appear that by focusing only on those muslims he believes to be in the euro union, that president barroso of the euro union commission “low balls” the figure in order to try and minimize the impact that further muslim immigration into europe will have. i will go with wilders, thank you. wilders also has said that europe will be 25% muslim by the year 2050, and not by year 2100 as the euro union maintains.
1.)”changing course: a new direction for u.s. relations with the muslim world,” published by the u.s.—muslim engagement group.
how would you feel if the american left planned the immigration of millions of muslims into the united states without telling you about it?
as i researched the documents for this piece, I began to notice certain things eerily reminiscent, and very much similar, to a pamphlet i wrote about not too long ago. that document was twice published by an organization called the “u.s.—muslim engagement group,” and called for the united states to completely change its policies toward the muslim and arab world. i have done everything i can to promote knowledge of this article, and pamela geller has done as much as she can as well, linking the article twice at atlasshrugs, here and here.
in my initial reporting on this pamphlet entitled “changing course: a new direction for u.s. relations with the muslim world” i wrote a piece called “obama’s vision — a muslim compatible america … the abandonment of israel” offered the following observations, which are worth repeating:
indeed, so enthusiastic are the report’s authors on “engagement” with islam, that they go so far as to suggest a significant cross acculturalization between american and muslim institutions, and a significant intermarriage, if you will, between those comprising the leadership strata in government, education, the academe, and leaders in the arts & entertainment, the sciences, and faith based and religious institutions, in both america and the muslim world.
…. so, i suppose there is only to turn to the text of the pamphlet i am discussing, and to see what it has to say about various things and why i think what is says.
the authors of “changing course” propose a radical integration of american and muslim societies, via a number of diplomatic effort that are more than just vaguely reminiscent of the community organizing done by various leftist groups in the united states since the 1960’s. the authors of “changing course” propose to initiate this integration of societies by:
“4. improve mutual respect and understanding between americans and muslims around the world
· use public diplomacy to reinforce changes in politics and actions
· dramatically expand cross-cultural education, people-to-people and interfaith exchange
· promote greater depth and accuracy in news coverage and programming
· invest in cultural diplomacy through arts and entertainment programs, to deepen mutual understanding and challenge stereotypes
· involve the muslim-american community as a bridge
report, “executive summary”
a not unintended consequence of such an exchange, socially and politically among societies, would be to elevate the political and social role and status of muslim american communities and individuals within american society: the use of the “muslim-american community” as a bridge between societies surely elevates the role of those people involved in the bridging, … , indeed, such a role would make such people indispensible within the content of such cross acculturalizaiton.
the goals asserted in “changing course” are not the goals associated with the conduct of traditional diplomacy between nations and governments, which while they may ameliorate conflict at that level of reality, do not really change the nature of the societies represented by governments: in some sense the attitudes in this pamphlet represent a repudiation of the limitations of classical state to state diplomacy. the reach of the diplomacy in “changing course” is to supersede the limitations of the nation state. i put it this way in my previous analysis of “changing course,” and it is a pretty clear expression of what the leftists who wrote “changing course” are up to:
heretofore, diplomacy has been conducted by governments, who marshaled the forces of their societies to advance their positions on the international stages, and whose diplomacy was conducted by ambassadors and generals, and when the common man had a role, it was subordinate, … , it was to fight and die adhering to his beliefs.
in short, what the young leftists community organizers of the 1960’s propose to do in “changing course” is to in effect bypass the role of governments in diplomacy, and to achieve a far more intimate exchange of learning and association between muslims and americans on a person to person basis.
i wrote earlier:
the exposition of these ideas begins in chapter v. of the report, sub-chapter 4., to “improve mutual respect and understanding between americans and muslims around the world,” beginning page 74 and running through page 91. … asserting the true aim of this report, the authors posit an integration of muslim and american societies:
“… given the perceptual and psychological barriers that have built up in many muslim countries and communities during the last decade or more, promoting effective, two-way communications with key muslim constituencies should be a major focus of u.s. public diplomacy and strategic communications.
it is equally important to promote education, dialogue, and creative collaboration at the societal level, both as an end in itself and as a way to create more political opportunities for u.s. and muslim leaders who want to improve relations. ….. however, the u.s. government and the government of muslim majority countries need not only to increase funding, but also to change policies and regulations to make it far easier for americans and muslims in other countries to meet, talk, learn and work together. philanthropic, religious, and media organizations also need to make significant new investments to ensure that there is deep civic engagement to complement government-sponsored initiatives.”
report, page 75.
this is an open and bald faced statement of the purpose of the report. [and, as noted, it is a repudiation of the classic notion held amongst nation states that only nation states conduct diplomacy. jjjay]
this is not the cooperation and exchange between diplomats and emissaries; this is an exchange and acculturation between people’s and societies. In the end, it is, to coin a phrase, i suppose, extra-diplomatic, in that the exchanges and loyalties developed thereby transcend the interests of governments, and become the interests of peoples. it is, in short, the community organizers end run dash around institutions, really in an effort to thwart institutions, just as pan-islam is not really curtailed nor controlled by the arab nation states.
the recommended and anticipated scope of such societal interchange and acculturalization, as it is termed by the “changing course” report writers is simply astounding, quite staggering in its own way. what it recommends, taken to its fullest extension, is the integration of american society and muslim society at their highest levels, the emphasis always being upon the exchange between elites and opinion makers and reporters: you will find no recommendation for like exchanges between construction workers and mechanics, for instance. now, upon first utterance or reading, this seems a silly point, but due reflection suggests otherwise: this is a report that suggests the integration of opinion and policy makers, the movers and shakers of society, with the rest of both societies to follow along dutifully, it would be assumed. but, let the report’s paragraphs speak for themselves, as set out by my commentary supplying some context:
we find these remarks with regard to educational reform in both the united states and in muslim nations:
“the u.s. government, together with educational, philanthropic, and business organizations, should substantially expand present commitments to academic and professional education on muslim history, religion, and culture, and on issues in u.s.–muslim relations.”
report, page 79
“it is equally important for the u.s. to expand its commitment to fund basic education (literacy and numeracy) in muslim countries, and to support teaching and learning about other cultures as part of the curriculum. the u.s. should not impose it view of what should be taught about other cultures in muslim countries’ schools. nonetheless, the u.s. should use dialogue and advocacy to promote balanced presentation of historical, political, and cultural issues, and to put an end to teaching the advocates of violence.”
report, page 81
we find these remarks about international exchanges to build understanding, which sounds strangely like subsidized education for muslim students in the united states, but again, these are things to “build bridges,” in the vernacular, at all levels of u.s. and muslim societies around the world. says the report:
“there are also strategic, cultural, and economic gains for the u.s. when bright young muslims, who will someday be leaders in their own countries, come to the u.s. for their education.
“organizations involved in cross-cultural student, cultural, professional, or community exchanges, and u.s. businesses with operation in muslim countries, should substantially scale up their efforts to promote direct contact among citizens and leaders from the u.s. and muslim countries. for example, the brookings institution has proposed a $50 million fund to support 10,000 global service fellowships per year. exchanges should target education, media, labor, military, religious, and community leaders, because of their potential impact as opinion makers. exchanges should also include musicians, artists, and others who can have a major effect on public perceptions and opinions.”
report, page 81.
what we see here, purportedly, is no less an effort than to tie entire generations of muslims to our view point. we should do well, however, to remember that most of the arabs who run o.p.e.c. organizations in the arab world were educated at english and american graduate institutions, and this has made them no less inclined to adopt economic and trade policies quite harmful to the united states: we should ask, why would we be any more successful this time around, in “turning” such people to our views.
nonetheless, the report continues, with particular and continuing emphasis upon “engagement” in areas dealing with the control and content of broadcasting in the mass media, … , e.g., television and radio. the report focus upon the mechanics of the dissemination of such viewpoints over public airways, as it might be influenced by arab/muslim news media, broadcasters and producers for u.s. broadcasts, and as it might be influenced by americans for muslim majority nations, and how this might be shaped and directed by this interchange. i suppose it not unmindful at this juncture, to remember that in most nations of the world, and decidedly arab & muslim nations fall into this category, the content and broadcast of ideas over the air is of such importance that governments control most of it, and it is strictly a monopoly of government agencies. even in the so called social democracies of western europe, such as in france and germany, the content of public broadcast is of such importance that it is not left to chance, or chaos, and is tightly supervised and controlled. only in the united states, and canada, and great britain, are private entities given absolute discretion in what they print and broadcast. (anyone given any thought to the “fairness doctrine,” and our good friend rush, lately?) does any of this sound like control of a propaganda agency? and, just how realistic is the caveat in the last sentence quoted, that no broadcasts in a muslim nation involving this sort of american cross-acculturalization are to be censored by muslim societies and governments:
“without adding substantially to the cost of coverage, news media could provide more diverse perspectives on breaking news and ongoing stories.
“in particular, u.s. news web sites could provide more extensive links to commentators based in muslim countries, and muslim media web sites could provide more links to commentators based in the u.s. discussion between the production and editorial staffs of major u.s. news media and counterparts in muslim national and regional markets about diversity and depth of coverage could also be productive. in the u.s., news media could expand their coverage of muslims in non-conflictual contexts, including charitable and civic organizations, fund-raising events and cultural activities, while simultaneously giving more publicity to muslim condemnation of terrorism and extremism.
“whatever initiatives are taken by news media to provide more innovative coverage, it is important that they be voluntary and clearly separate from governmental public diplomacy, and from soft or hard censorship.”
report, pages 85-86.
this report suggests nothing less than the total integration of american and muslims societies at the highest level of leadership and opinion making, as a way to decrease conflicts & tension between the societies resulting from failures of communication and knowledge. (“what we have here, is a failure to communicate,” a classic observation from “cool hand luke.”)
in some sense the recommendations from “changing course” sound democratic and egalitarian, but it is not until a more sober assessment is made do we realize that the “interchange” and understandings realized above are accomplished by societal elite talking to his societal co-equal on the other side, and that it is elites and opinion and policy makers who achieve these broader understandings, for the most part.
2.)the european union and the euro-med integration.
pamela geller has brought the issue of muslim immigration into europe in the coming years into very shrap focus and into the forefront of public discussion, both in terms of the numbers involved, and in terms of the social consequences that will impact european life, and european civilization.
but, as we began to explore the documents and basis of the euro-med agreements, and other diplomatic texts common in the euro union scheme of things called “association agreements,” which are diplomatic accords between the union and other nations (some of which are being prepared & groomed for accession into membership in the union), it became readily apparent that most if not all of the goals enunciated for america and the arab world are also stated as goals in the associations between the euro union and other nations, and especially in the euro-med partnerships.
the goals for societal interchange and integration are no different in the euro-med “association agreements,” and i hope to be able to demonstrate that with requisite clarity in the passages to follow. one must assume that similar language in these areas of diplomacy have similar import: indeed, it should be no surprise that “changing course” celebrates the euro union diplomacy, as the lineage runs for nearly 20 years in politically leftist circles around the world. and, it might be added, seems to find its origins in euro union aspirations to dominate international politics and diplomacy: while the u.s. used military muscle to impose a peace, the europeans have been scurrying around making diplomatic relationships, securing the “spoils” of our “wars,” as it were.
if my assumptions are correct on the matter, this has tremendous import to european citizens, the citizens of the various nation states. because it reveals to them for the first time what the leaders of the european union have in mind for them, in ways that they could not have considered before, because a great deal of this has been kept from them. it seems to me, and has for a while, that the european left intends that no european nationalism be left in the union when they are done with it: the european left seems intent to destroy the last vestiges of european nationhood, the last underpinnings of the nation state, and the last loyalty of any european citizens to any political entities other than the european unity.
if i am correct, if the documents reveal what i think they reveal, the european left means to subsume and submerge european nationalism by inundating it in a sea of islamic immigration, and by integrating pan muslim and pan arabic culture into eurpean culture wholly erasing the later.
I think that I am correct in this, and that this represents fundamental insight into the motives and future operations of the european leftist governing elites. phew!!
not without some difficulty, I have found the original text of an “association agreement” signed between the european union and egypt on 25 june 2001 and ratified by the entire member states of the union and effective 06 january 2004: the euro-med has been up and running for some time folks, as very ably documented by robert spencer. the “egyptian association agreement” is 355 pages long in pdf format, and, for the most part, as you might expect, it is concerned with regulating and promoting commerce between the european union and egypt. the european union did start out as a trade association, and this remains an important function of the union, but that function has been somewhat relegated to reduced status given the drive to world government.
you will also find exact parallels between the goals and missions of the euro-med “association agreement” and those goals and missions advanced in the tract of the u.s.—muslim engagement group’s pamphlet, “changing course,” suggesting beyond reasonable doubt that the america’s leftist vision if not inspired by the euro left’s is tracking almost exactly parallel to it. and, you will not be surprised to find that the “association agreement” follows exactly on point with those principles related in the organic documents of the euro union discussed above in this paper.
what are some of the parallels?
one of the more striking parallels in the euro-med agreements with the american left’s views on people to people diplomacy finds expression in the “association agreements” provisions on integration of european and muslim news and public broadcasting, reflecting the overwhelming importance of television as an informational and propaganda device in the modern state, which seeks to govern and regulate the dissemination of knowledge. the “association agreement” between the euro-med partners and egypt, and it is well to remember that it is governments talking about shaping media policies in this agreement, reads as follows:
information society and telecommunications
the parties recognise that information and communication technologies constitute a key element of modern society, vital to economic and social development and a cornerstone of the emerging information society.
the cooperation activities between the parties in this field shall aim at :
– a dialogue on issues related to the different aspects of the information society, including telecommunications policies;
– the exchanges of information and eventual technical assistance with regulatory matters, standardisation, conformity testing and certification in relation to information technologies and telecommunications;
– the diffusion of new information and communications technologies and the refinement of new applications in these fields;
– the implementation of joint projects for research, technical development or industrial
applications in information technologies, communications, telematics and information
– the participation of egyptian organisations in pilot projects and european programmes within the established frameworks;
– interconnection between networks and the interoperability of telematic services in the community and egypt. ce/eg/en_40-41.
just as the american left, the european left view television as something too important to be left to amateurs, and too important not to go unregulated by government. the statements of these policies are very frank assessments on the part of government ministers and bureaucrats alike, that the dissemination of information to the public is something of very grave concern to government, and something that the partnership governments in the euro-med should monitor and shape carefully to properly educate their citizens.
like their american counterparts, and no doubt inspiring them, the european ministers are very much concerned about educational matters, and exchanging world views with their muslim neighbors in north africa. again, these are ministers and bureaucrats of governments, setting joint policies on the educational policies of the heretofore world’s great democracies, with north african societies and economies barely emerging into modernity, in some respects:
education and training
the parties shall cooperate with the objective of identifying and employing the most effective means to improve significantly education and vocational training, in particular with regard to public and private enterprises, trade-related services, public administrations and authorities, technical agencies, standardisation and certification bodies and other relevant organisations. in this context, the access of women to higher education and training will receive special attention.
and, in like fashion, the european politicians and bureaucrats are concerned that their efforts result in cultural understanding and dialogue, and not just that, but cross aculturalization, in other words the attainment of understanding that transcends mere familiarity and rises to a level of appreciation and affinity. again, we quote from the euro-med association agreement signed with egypt on 25 june 2001:
1. the parties agree to promote cultural cooperation in fields of mutual interest and in a spirit of respect for each other’s cultures. they shall establish a sustainable cultural dialogue. this cooperation shall promote in particular:
– conservation and restoration of historic and cultural heritage (such as monuments, sites, artefacts, rare books and manuscripts);
– exchange of art exhibitions, troupes of performing arts, artists, men of letters, intellectuals and cultural events;
– training of persons working in the cultural field.
2. cooperation in the field of audiovisual media shall seek to encourage cooperation in such areas as co-production and training. the parties shall seek ways to encourage egyptian participation in community initiatives in this sector.
3. the parties agree that existing cultural programmes of the community and of one or more of the member states and further activities of interest to both sides can be extended to egypt.
4. the parties shall, in addition, work to promote cultural cooperation of a commercial nature, particularly through joint projects (production, investment and marketing), training and exchange of information.
5. the parties shall, in identifying cooperation projects, programmes and joint activities, give special attention to young people, self-expression, heritage conservation issues, the dissemination of culture, and communication skills using written and audiovisual media.
6. cooperation shall be implemented in particular through:
– a regular dialogue between the parties;
– regular exchange of information and ideas in every sector of cooperation including meetings of officials and experts;
– transfer of advice, expertise and training;
– implementation of joint actions such as seminars and workshops;
– technical, administrative and regulatory assistance;
– dissemination of information on cooperation initiatives.
again, as with the american left’s vision in “changing course” there is an emphasis on a diplomacy that transcends relationships between states, to an effort to engage entire societies and culture in a mutual exchange of information, and, presumably, good will. and, please notice again, that such interchange and mutual planning and development is not taking place between garage mechanics grocery store managers, but between those that we might describe as societal elites, politicians and governmental bureaucrats: this looks superficially like democracy, but, in reality, is handmaiden to a far different and more centralized governmental control. there is a reason why these matters are not widely disseminated in europe and england.
we haven’t set out all the parallels, as such would be very daunting in a paper of this brevity, and i say that full realizing the length required to set this all out even briefly. but, we think that it should be obvious to even the most partisan observer, that in this matter of people to people diplomacy the american left and the europen left are moving on parallel tracks.
and, that the american left and the european left have decided to court islam and the muslim countries most assiduously as they follow this path. why have the arabs and muslims of the world, or even of the 3rd world for that matter, been singled out for this? are there no people less quarrelsome, less warlike, less prone to international and national terrorism, who might have been found more suitable persons with whom to build relationships? less prickly? less murderous?
we have seen how the organic documents of the european union and the euro-med agreements suggest that a proper methodology of integrating the societies of the mediterranean basis is by promoting islamic immigration into europe on a massive scale. the euro-med and egyptian “association agreement” signed 06 june 2001 shows precisely how this is to be implemented, by a massive integration of economies and trade practices, by lowering restrictive trade barriers, and by an insinuation of cross cultural values into both european and muslim societies by joint management of the news, and exchange of entertainers and educators and the like. and now, a reminder of how the real work of this exchange and change is to be done, as made explicit in the following paragraphs from the euro-med document: we quote these relevant passages, and inquire of you, if you have ever witnessed diplomacy that was concerned with a dialogue and cooperation on social matters of citizens of different states? this is not the diplomacy of states, this is a diplomacy that seeks integration of society and government, that seeks to change and regulate the relationships of persons in heretofore separate societies, and not just of their respective governments:
dialogue and cooperation on social matters
the parties reaffirm the importance they attach to the fair treatment of their workers legally residing and employed in the territory of the other party. the member states and egypt, at the request of any of them, agree to initiate talks on reciprocal bilateral agreements related to the working conditions and social security rights of egyptian and member state workers legally resident and employed in their respective territory.
1. the parties shall conduct regular dialogue on social matters which are of interest to them.
2. this dialogue shall be used to find ways to achieve progress in the field of movement of workers and equal treatment and social integration of egyptian and community nationals legally residing in the territories of their host countries. [do you really think 50 million europeans are going to immigrate to north africa in the next 50 years?: jjjay.]
3. the dialogue shall notably cover all issues related to:
(a) migrant communities’ living and working conditions;
(c) illegal migration;
(d) actions to encourage equal treatment between egyptian and community nationals, mutual knowledge of cultures and civilizations, the furthering of tolerance and the removal of discrimination.
dialogue on social matters shall be conducted in accordance with the same procedures as those provided for in title i of this agreement.
with a view to consolidating cooperation between the parties in the social field, projects and programmes shall be carried out in any area of interest to them.
priority will be given to:
(a) reducing migratory pressures, notably by improving living conditions, creating jobs, and income generating activities and developing training in areas from which emigrants come;
(b) promoting the role of women in economic and social development;
(c) bolstering and developing egyptian family planning and mother and child protection
(d) improving the social protection system;
(e) improving the health care system;
(f) improving living conditions in poor areas;
(g) implementing and financing exchange and leisure programmes for mixed groups of egyptian and european young people residing in the member states, with a view to promoting mutual knowledge of their respective cultures and fostering tolerance.
and, finally, our favorite portion of the document, and a treat for those of you who like lists and pomp and ceremony as much as i do:
the plenipotentiaries of:
the kingdom of belgium,
the kingdom of denmark,
the federal republic of germany,
the hellenic republic,
the kingdom of spain,
the french republic,
the italian republic,
the grand ducky of luxembourg,
the kingdom of the netherlands,
the republic of austria,
the portuguese republic,
the republic of finland,
the kingdom of sweden,
the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland,
contracting parties to the treaty establishing the european … , hereinafter referred to as the “member states”, and of the european community, hereinafter referred to as “the community”, of the one part,
the plenipotentiaries of the arab republic of egypt, hereinafter referred to as “egypt”,
of the other part,
meeting at luxembourg on 25 june 2001 for the signature of the euro-mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the european communities and their member states,
of the one part,
and the arab republic of egypt,
of the other part,
hereinafter referred to as
“euro-mediterranean agreement”, have adopted the following texts:
the euro-mediterranean agreement, the annexes thereto and the following protocols: … .
in preparing this paper i have talked to some who thought the euro-mediterranean agreement moribund. the euro-med sure does not act moribund, does it/do they? they act like they are up and running with a vengeance, these entities that act as member states and as union.
I am not going to tell you the status of the various agreements extent. you may google that and find out for yourselves. but, the euro-med is viable, and it is stumbling & bumbling along its way to full status.
it foretells a conquest of a civilization that genghis khan could not muster. and, every bit of it has been accomplished by a european left inimically hostile to the concept of european nation hood and nationality: europe is not being destroyed from without, it is being destroyed purposefully by those acting from within, and by those who hold firmly as yet to the reins of power. this all portends a betrayal from with unprecedented, truly in history.
why the left courts islam.
at this juncture a certain intellectual schism emerges, and it relates to trying to understand just why it is that the world’s left is so enamored of islam, and why our culture both on this side of the pond and the other seeks “engagement” with a religion and culture that in so many ways seems to to me hidebound, barbaric, repressive and forever systematically appositional to ever acquiring or even wanting to acquire western knowledge and values. let alone trying to arrive at some sort of institutional peace between civilizations. understand something here. i am not a cultural relativist in any sense of the word. i believe western civilization, religion, culture and political heritage superior to islam in every respect, and far superior to islam in aiding the individual to lead a cultured, civil, ethical, moral and happy life. i would gladly pound medina into dust if it meant securing the primacy and survival of the west over the entirety of islam: in a short heartbeat.
i see very little worth in the basic religion, which seems more an instrument of political administration and conquest, than a religion. in some respects islam seems more about the repression of women than anything else, and the religion exercises rigid control over their behavior and status by any number of regimens. they suffer violence which is endemic to religious values, and occupy a position is most Islamic cultures which is stultifying and demeaning: women bear the burden of sexual disfigurement when their clitorises are removed, by such precision instruments as broken glass, and suffer other ignominy straight from the middle ages. yet leftist feminism murmurs nary a sound of dissent. islam in europe calls for democracy and the rule of law in relation to their own treatment, yet calls for the death of european political leaders, to include the queen of england, former prime minister tony blair, geert wilders in the netherlands who may very well be the next dutch prime minister, … , and yet leftist politicians, prosecutors and public officials intimidate and suppress any european complaint about this by a ferocious and implacable application of “hate speech” rules when europeans have the temerity to point out the social consequences of such behavior: it is a contradiction that defies imagination, yet the european left seems content with it. and, islamic thugs harass and beat anglican and catholic clerics the length and breadth of europe and england, and the leftist clerics continue to find excuse for such loutish behavior. the crime rate soars in the presence of islamic males of adolescent and early adulthood, including violent assault and especially the rape of european women, yet such is excused or ignored in the european media. and, let us not forget, the annual performance upon new year’s eve of the massive burning of french automobiles by muslim “youth,” a new year’s revelry as described in press releases from french ministeries and as reported on french television.
and, there is the matter of culture, and legalism.
europeans are required to exercise tolerance to islamic culture. yet, islam has entirely no requirement to tolerate european culture, and indeed, european governments and the european union legislate and attempt to stamp out every last vestige of nationalistic sentiment in the european populations whenever it finds expression. as has been remarked, odd that: the euro union decries racism yet it imposes a vicious reverse racism on its own subjects in favor of an immigrant class whose “importation” the euro union sponsors, and culturally favors the interlopers when inevitable tensions arise.
it is hard to comprehend intellectually, why this is so. why does european politics and legal authority suppress european nationalism, even while it champions the right of muslims to express their nationalism, ethnicity and religious ethos while condoning the clear breach of european law and ethos by muslim immigrants?
some suggest there need be no search for obscure explanations, that the reason is obvious, and it lies in the fact that arab nations have the lion’s share of the world’s oil reserves while europe has almost none, and find in those facts ready and reliable explanation as to why the euro leftist who administer the euro union are willing to sell their countrymen down the toilet in favor of arab muslim immigration. they are of the opinion that europe is hostage to this energy disparity, and that the europeans will do anything to gain access to the middle east’s oil reserves, including political union with them, and accepting the presence their excess populations as immigrants, this burden partially set off by their cheap labor.
i do not agree with this assessment, and confessedly do not find this a ready explanation.
there is no doubt about the disparity in energy reserves between europe and the middle east. but, to my mind the fact of energy reserves do not begin to explain the european union’s adventures with the “euro-med political partnerships.” and the key reason to my mind is that the euro-med does not really reach the middle eastern oil fields that one might expect to be the aim of a geo-political thrust to obtain access to arab oil, nor does it really even give the euro union the launching off point to try and gain dominance over the middle eastern fields. to state it as succinctly as possible, the “euro-med” is an insufficient lever by which to move the middle eastern oil fields into and under europe’s sway.
the reasons are geo-political.
and here, we have a little exercise.
i would like to introduce you to captain john, and his wonderful map of the world’s reserves: this map is by far the cleverest such that i have ever seen, lending at once a graphic understanding of who has the oil and who uses it in the world. you must follow the link to the map, but it is well worth it, and quite entertaining.
the next thing to do is to go to “google maps,” and pop up the mediterranean sea and the middle east/gulf of arabia in one view, and split your screen, putting captain john’s marvelous map and google maps side by side, and just look at them.
and, finally, do one other thing. well, you don’t have to do it, we will simply tell you something. libya is not part of the euro-med organization, and libya has the largest oil reserves in africa. but, and here is the clue to what i am getting at: africa is not the middle east, and in this instance, it does not look to me that it would give europe the geo-political clout to reach the middle east, even were it a part of the euro-med, and it is not.
look at captain john’s oil map.
saudi arabia is the biggest country in the world, in terms of oil reserves. and, it become obvious, that though france and germany are amongst the world’s largest consumers of oil, being the same hideous olive as russia, canada, mexico and brazil, that they are laughably lacking in any kind of oil reserves at all. and, if you go to the map of the world’s coal reserves at the world coal institute, you will find the same situation obtains as to coal and natural gas: europe has none to speak of, or, more precisely, the euro union has bupkis for coal reserves. the euro union has no energy reserves of its own: it has to buy all of its energy, as a practicle matter, at retail upon open world markets. it has a petroleum paucity and an anthracite anomaly, put simply. ironic, isn’t it, that the euro union should have no carbon of its own. (does the motive of cheating european scientists to fabricate “global warming” statistics, in order to obtain control over carbon harvesting, distribution and consumption, become clearer, mean anything to you now? it wasn’t bad science, it was patriotism.)
now that you have absorbed all that, it is back to google map. and here the sorry state of europe’s geo-political reach is revealed, and it is revealed why the euro-med scheme is not going to give europe access to the middle east’s oil reserves. europe and euro-med are too far away from the middle east, and euro-med does not put it any closer, in any practicable sense.
since europe is so tiny and saudi arabia so large on captain john’s map, the two look close together. they are not, in a geo-political sense, and, they are not, in the sense of real politik, and again, euro-med does nothing to put europe any closer to the oil. the same things that prevent europe from exercising hegemony over the middle east exist even in the presence of an expanded and functioning euro-med partnership. euro-med, in the strictest sense, changes nothing. amazingly enough.
in the realities of geo-politics, there are the little matters of syria, jordan, israel and egypt & the suez canal separating europe from the middle east. they separate europe from the middle east now, and they do not put it any close w/ euro-med.
france and germany and italy and england cannot surmount this reality because they, and the euro union, have no military or diplomatic reach likely to be able to exert any influence on middle eastern oil and energy policy: euro-med will not change this. neither the euro-med nor the euro union have blue water or strategic navies, and hence no leverage of an immediate presence in the region to influence o.p.e.c. policies on oil supply and production. if they had navies they do not have the infantry to put ashore such as might constitute a legitimate threat to capture and hold middle eastern oil fields.
and here is a determinative factor geo-politically.
it might be legitimately said that the united states of america possesses all of those tools and assets, and in an overwhelming fashion. and it may be legitimately observed that the middle eastern world is acutely aware of u.s. power in this regard, having watched the u.s. forces in action twice in iraq and now in afghanistan, and it escapes no one’s notice that afghanistan is a very long ways away from anywhere, but there we are. and, moreover, that the u.s. not only has this power, but the ability to marshall sufficient diplomatic and military unity to muster support from the world’s other “powers,” whether it really needs them or not, but it does look good diplomatically, doesn’t it. (and the united states has not the political will to enforce favorable gas and oil prices on middle eastern suppliers, and so the united state suffers the same geo-political penalty in this sense that the euro-union does. retail.)
the u.s. cannot force a more favorable price with its power and assets than, … , retail. and, most assuredly, the euro union without this naked power and asset, is not going to be able to force a more favorable price from the middle east for its oil, either. and, the eventual materialization of the euro-med is not going to change that geo-political fact one little bit.
the u.s. and the euro union pay the same spot prices for oil that everybody else in the world does. if they are not willing, or in the case of the europeans, not able to take the resource by brute force, the middle eastern oil barons will reward such ethical propensity by charging retail.
retail is a reality. and not even a european presence in egypt, and a short pipeline across a short stretch of the red sea below the suez is going to change that. retail remains the governing fact, in the world of real politik. any additional costs of delivery of the oil resource to europe associated with changing the location of method of delivery of oil at the terminus belonging to the saudis, will be absorbed by the buyer. at retail.
oddly enough, if you google the topic of “oil pipelines + saudia arabia” you will not find very much, except a couple of sites which note that several existing pipelines have been closed down by regional conflict. a pretty good site run by pbs explains why more pipelines do not exist carrying crude oil from saudi arabia to europe, and the fact is simple. pipelines across saudi arabia cost the saudi’s money in production and delivery costs, a cost which they are not willing to absorb:
much of the [saudi arabia’s] oil resources and infrastructure are located in the east, close to the conflict prone persian gulf, necessitating passage through the straits of hormuz, a two mile wide shipping bottleneck at the gulf’s outlet to the sea. of the eight largest oil and gas fields that contain more than half of saudi oil reserves, the two biggest ghawar (the world’s largest oil field) and safaniya (the world’s largest offshore oilfield) are near or in the persian gulf itself. two-thirds of saudi arabia’s crude oil is exported from the gulf via the abqaiq processing facility. saudi arabia’s two primary oil export terminals are located at ras tanura (the world’s largest offshore oil transfer facility) and ras al-ju’aymah, both in the gulf, as well. another terminal lies in yanbu, a port city on the red sea. in an effort to rely less on the gulf route through the straits, the saudis have constructed the east-west crude oil pipeline (petroline) to transport crude nearly 750 miles from the ghawar oil field to yanbu. however, this route is not as efficient as the straits of hormuz, adding five days shipping time to asia. thus far, economic concerns have kept the pipeline operating at only half capacity. the abqaiq-yanbu natural gas liquids pipeline, which runs parallel to the petroline, serves yanbu’s petrochemical plants. two additional pipleines: the trans-arabian pipeline to lebanon and the 48-inch iraqi pipeline have been closed indefinitely due to regional conflicts.
the euro-med adventure does not alter this.
the euros have nothing that they can offer to the middle eastern countries, saudi arabia in particular, that serve as inducements similar to those they are capable of offering their partners in the mediterranean basin. the saudi’s do not have any excess population that they need siphoned off, so there is not value in reducing oil prices to get rid of excess number by sending them off to europe. the middle eastern countries do not lack access to educational opportunities for their elites, such as suffered historically by the north africans: the saudi and the Iraqis have no problems placing students in western universities, nor do they lack the funds to pay for their educational needs.
the situation as to immigration may be a little different for iraq and iran, which do not share in the societal and governmental and ruling class riches enjoyed by saudi and the emirates. but here, another limiting factor on the utility of trading accommodation for excess muslim populations for access to oil takes over: at some point there has to be a finite limit in an economic sense for the utility of acquiring the benefit of geo-political gain in exchange for the burden of societal damage and expense associated with the importation of marginal people: let’s face it, the euros are going to want to acquire trained persons of economic value, and the muslims are going to want to give away worthless duds. it is a classic horse trade.
the euros can only absord so many immigrants.
and, it still get them, in my estimation, one overriding reality.
retail prices at the middle eastern production terminuses. as a cautionary note, please remember that none of these things that brought her mediterranean colleagues into euro-med have induced libya to sign up.
the middle east speaks money.
and, saudi arabia has all the money in the world, almost literally, and it has no excess population to support: and, its per capita income more or less guarantees that no one will leave saudi arabia for menial labor in europe. and, note one other thing. it costs money and time and efficiency for saudi arabia to pipeline oil from one side of the country to the other, even if avoiding transit of oil past the straits of hormuz: that is the reason the pipe line to yanbu runs only part time, and i can guarantee you that is only when oil demand is very high, and when high spot prices justify shipment of the oil by pipeline.
the united states has military bases in saudi arabia, and we have defended them twice from iraqi aggressions. we are their largest customer in the world. for this we get wahiddi terrorism, and retail. europe simply does not have the geo-political nor military muscle to demand otherwise, and the euro-med will not change that situation one iota. with regard to middle eastern oil, the situation remains for the euro union what it has always been.
no, the saudis will not change. and the situation for the europeans will not change.–the european union can pick up its oil where everybody else picks up theirs, at the ocean side terminals. i do not understand how the euro-med partnership(s) will change that calculus one bit. and, for the house of saud, the oil business is a simple business: you extract the stuff out of the ground and put it in the boats for around a $1 to $2 bill, take the $50 to $70 to $90 @ barrel the guy on the ship pays, and the rest of it, the shipping costs and the manufacturing costs and distribution and sales, why, that’s his dime and his problem. they simply don’t care. and, you know something, that’s just the way it ought to be: nobody is putting a gun to our heads to buy the stuff, now, are they?
if i am right, the smart guys at the european union ought to be able to figure that out as well.
if they can figure out that the euro-med’s importation of muslim immigrants will neither secure them guaranteed access to oil, nor reduced prices for the same, then what is the motive for the euro-union to admit 50-100 million muslims (workers + families) into its confines in the next 50 years. surely, for them to do so, especially in light of the fact that no present labor shortages are demonstrable over the euro union, then there must be some other compelling reason to do so, given the social discord the relatively few number of muslims in europe causes already.
i think i know, and that i understand the thought process of the european left in all of this.
first, the euro lefties think that they are noble to help their third world brothers. o.k., so much for that bullshit.
second, the european leftists want to crush the remaining vestiges of nationalism within the european union, and that muslims are just the ones to do it for them, via european union immigration and legal policies.
the raison d’être for muslim europe, or at least a europe sufficiently Islamized that it has destroyed the european national, the flemish, the walloons, the normans, the saxons, the prussians, the hessians, the britons, along with the germans and the english?
it is the new european man.
it is nothing new with ideologues, in fact the crafting of a “new” man to fit the needs of the “new” regime is relatively standard fare for marxist-leninist pap this past 150 years of so. marxist-leninist theorists under lenin and stalin postulated a new “soviet” man, and they killed thousands of the old model to make way for taking deliveries, so to speak, on the new models. we wouldn’t be too surprised that if one searched the archives of the german national socialists one would come up with some sort of reference to the new man most suitable for the visionaries of the party, in charge of such matters. a man unsurprisingly to look just exactly like the idealization of the aryan soldier found in german political posters and other art works. and, indeed, if you go to the writings harold lasswell, a 1930’s professor of law at yale law school, and close intellectual colleague of harold laski of london school of economics fame, and a chief intellectual exponent of the british labour party, e.g., anglo-saxon-norman branch of the russian communist party, you will find in both a fervor for the new “socialist” man, a man especially adapted and fitted for contributing to the regime.
lasswell and laski had been horrified by world war one, and both sought the sinecure of social stability as a way to avoid social upheaval and the violence of open conflict, and both sought in modern social science a way to produce a populace less inclined to such committing such waste. writes dennis smith, democracy on trial, quoted at some length in an earlier article of mine, of the views of these two men:
it was not for lack of effort on harold lasswells’ part. he wanted very much to psychologically prepare america for fundamental political, and collectivist, change.—
lasswell was a proponent of making the population “psychologically fit” to be citizens, and measuring them to try and determine their proclivities, e.g., what they might do:
“like laski, [lasswell] focused upon the dimension of political power. however, as the title of his book power and personality (1948) implied, the other dimension of his analysis was not economic, but psychological. in order to make democracy work, the key issue was not to put the economic structure right but to get personality right. scientists paid considerable attention to shifts in the physical environment, but:
‘our self-observatories are in a less-advanced state… . we need a never-ending inventory of the character-personality structure (with special reference to the requirements of democracy) of our one-year olds, our two-year olds and so on up. these annual cross-sectional patterns can be chosen by proper sampling methods throughout all accessible cultures, all strata in society, and hence during all crisis and intercrisis situations.’ (lasswell 1948: 169).
lasswell proposed that cross-section reports on ‘environmental and predispositional factors’ should be made. this would permit experiments to be carried out for the sake of determining the relative usefulness of different ways of changing the environment to help in ‘the formation of the democratic personality.’ (lasswell 1948: 169).” dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 120-121.
in short, lasswell proposed fitting and crafting the person for suitability in the political scheme, and not crafting the political scheme to fit the needs, aspirations, dreams and desires of the person comprising it. so much, as they say, for the pursuit of happiness. lasswell’s motivation was the pursuit of suitability.
lasswell and laski were proponents of rule by societal elites, social scientists and politicians and those in the know, and favored such rule over societies in which the passions and contentions of man led to disorder. this passage setting forth their views, sets this perspective off nicely. is there any one reading this who does not find the sentiments of these marxist social scientists of the 1930’s reflected in the structures of the modern british government, or of the euro union, and does not any american reading this see the impetus towards this in his governance. again, this passage comments on the dennis smith book, democracy on trial:
lasswell and laski formulated many of their criticism of democracy and capitalism, which of course nurtured them both in the comfort, privilege and prestige of professorial endeavor, in the 20’s and 30’s following the horrors of world war i. it may be said, and has been, that the carnage and waste of that war, which destroyed the flower of european and english youth and topped empires of long standing, also destroyed western civilization’s faith in itself. this, i think something of an oversimplification, as the common man persevered and functioned as ever before, (as is the common man’s wont), but it is true to say that wwi destroyed the intellectual classes’ faith in democracy and capitalism. as noted of lasswell and laski:
“both men rejected theories based upon the supposed preferences and actions of rational individuals and a sovereign state. their immediate intellectual predecessors had defined the ‘task of the hour.’ in lasswell’s words, this task was
‘the development of a realistic analysis of the political in relation to the social process, and this depends upon the invention of abstract conceptions and upon the prosecution of empirical research. it is precisely this missing body of theory and practice which … undertook to supply in england and which … has been most foremost in encouraging in the united states. (lasswell 1951a: 46)’” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 109.
in short, lasswell argued for the development of a view of man not premised upon his rationality nor ability to decide what is in his best interests, but to develop a scheme of politics which would somehow inhibit the mischief that indulgence in this belief had caused, wwi bearing eloquent witness. lasswell would protect us from ourselves, and from our pernicious thoughts.
lasswell and laski were to bring science to bear upon the issues of politics and rule, and science would brook no tolerance of outmoded conceptualizations which had proved impotent to prevent the irrational war to end all wars. adherence to the old 19th century views of politics were deemed “unscientific,” and those who held to such views were not abreast of the times. or, as one professor put it, the view to be accepted was “… that the non-rational side of human nature should be accepted as a datum and built into the theories of political science.” dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 109-110. science, (and by direct implication, scientists) should rule the day, with a view towards inhibiting man’s irrationality.
both men were proponents of shaped social discussion, that is, discussion led by scientists and elites, and which constituted, quite frankly, propaganda as shaped and manipulated by societal elites, the media, and others in control of its contents. this was premised upon their mutual distrust of the passions of men, and their belief that individuals were often the poorest judges of “what was good for them:”
this passage from wikipedia with regard to lasswell is a convenient thumbnail sketch of his views, and should give substantial insight into the manipulation of image and language would forms the language and content of political speech in this day and age:
“along with other influential liberals of the period, such as walter lippman, he argued that democracies needed propaganda to keep the uninformed citizenry in agreement with what the specialized class had determined was in their best interests. as he wrote in his entry on propaganda for the encyclopaedia of the social sciences, we must put aside “democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests” since “men are often poor judges of their own interests, flitting from one alternative to the next without solid reason”. [footnote 3, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/harold_lasswell]
lasswell construed the specialized classes as ruling elites, the academics, the socially & economically well positioned, and politicians & political bureaucrats who knew best what was in the interests of the people that they ruled over, and from lasswell’s position, those who occupied those positions if not doing so by virtue, at least had earned the privilege by guile and craft.
this last on harold lasswell and propaganda:
mr. lasswell was not simply interested in passively measuring attitudes, but in actively manipulating attitudes, beliefs, and “normative standards of conduct,” if you will, in order to make a society more tractable and governable.
his first efforts at the study of attitude and belief manipulation involved measuring the efforts of the various propagandists at work in world war one to see how they went about their manipulations. writes smith :
“tocqueville and mill had feared the irrationality of public opinion. through its agency, prejudice was liable to challenge the rule of the rational. lasswell demonstrated that nearly a century later the tables had been turned. the rational procedures of science and bureaucracy were fully equipped to create fantasy and strengthen prejudice within public opinion. in his study of propaganda during the first world war he showed that this function was systematically organized by the state. by directing a flow of signs and symbols for the attention of the target audience at home or abroad, the propagandist sought the ‘instigation of animosity toward the enemy, the preservation of friendship between allies and neutrals, and the demoralization of the enemy.’ (1971: 46)
lasswell concluded that propaganda by print, screen and so on was the modern substitute for the tribal tom-tom: ‘print must supplant the dance.’ (221).
“…. The propagandist concerned with stirring passions in wartime typically wanted to put a match to the bonfire. the peacetime politician was usually more interested in pouring water over the danger area. this was a central theme in psychopathology and politics (1951a).
“in this book lasswell dismissed the idea that politics was about rational discussion and democratic consultation. in a passage which took a point of view diametrically opposed to the line adopted by laski in the grammar of politics, lasswell complained about the ‘vast diversion of energy towards the study of the formal etiquette of government.’ he added:
‘in some vague way, the problem of politics is the advancement of the good life, but this is a once assumed to depend upon the modification of the mechanisms of government. democratic theorists in particular have hastily assumed that social harmony depends upon discussion, and that discussion depends upon the formal consultation of all those affected by social problems. the time has come to abandon the assumption that the problem of politics is the problem of promoting discussion among all the interests concerned in a given problem. discussion frequently complicates social difficulties, for the discussion by far-flung interests arouses a psychology of conflict which produces obstructive, fictitious, and irrelevant values.’ (lasswell 1951a: 196-7)
“in lasswell’s view, the problem of politics was less to solve conflicts than to prevent them occurring. political activity should direct society’s energy at ‘the abolition of recurrent sources of strain in society…’ the tension level should be reduced as far as possible through ‘preventive politics.’”  dennis smith, democracy on trial, pages 122-123.
“this should be guided by ‘the truth about the conditions of harmonious human relations, and the discovery of the truth is an object of specialized research; it is no monopoly of people as people, or ruler as ruler.’ (197)” dennis smith, democracy on trial, page 123.
in short, the art of politics is to get everybody’s head right, to prevent the social discord present when everybody doesn’t have their heads right. this is an extraordinary passage, and an extraordinary insight into the ideologue’s mind, as it reveals that “truth” is known, and is in conformity with the ideologue’s notion of how things should be, and that the discovery and verification of that truth is to be the object of research, … , by, … , well, who else, the social scientist.
the simple fact is that europe does not have to bring islam and muslims to europe in order to secure its economic productivity, especially if we consider that through euro-med the european union could have utilized the north african/mediterranean basin labor pool in its home countries, via outsourcing, as the united states has done on the north american continent.
it is widely recognized that the united states is an economic colossus. but what is not so widely known is that canada and mexico also have very strong, and very large economies, ranking among the largest in the world: the size of the north american economy easily outstrips that of the euro union. the integration of the mexican and canadian economies with that of the united states is responsible for this.
the euro union could have done the same, moving industry to the labor pool in the mediterranean basin.
yet the european union has decided to move the labor pool to the industrial sites, and to move a massive number of north african muslims immigrants into their midst, with all the social problems, crime, and the conflict of religious beliefs, cultural values, and the clash of civilizations.
and, why islam?
why did the leaders of the euro union, and it sure as hell wasn’t the general populace who promoted and adopted these schemes, not simply turn to south america for a populace far more compatible with european norms, given that south america is populated by large groups of european heritage and background, holding similar values and faiths common to their homelands?
there may be contrary explanations for why this was done.
some may contend that it was to secure cheap access to energy, and to achieve control over the region of the world with the largest oil reserves.
i believe this not a persuasive explanation, perhaps not even plausible, and i am convinced that in no wise does it even come close to serving as a complete explanation, because i do not think that europe can achieve such goals as to secure cheaper energy needs via the euro-med project, for the reasons stated above.
i believe that more fundamentally, the social planners and schemers at the euro-med and the european union think that muslims immigrants & muslim immigration are the precise mechanism excusing the imposition of those social controls that finally destroy the last vestiges of european nationalism, of european statehood, those things that stand in the way of the european masses/society from having their ultimate loyalties lie with the european union.
the european elites and leftist politicians intend to bring in enough muslim immigrants to give rise to a sufficient level of social discord and even racial and ethnic and religious values in order to justify the imposition of those societal controls and norms (necessary to prevent the conflict between europeans and the muslims perhaps giving rise to the violence or civil war fomented by the left) which will give rise to the full implementation of the socialist marxist euro union state. they intend to manage the conflict in such a way as to eliminate any continuing nationalist loyalty, and to instill loyalty political loyalty in the european union as a source of social stability and order. along the way there will arise the opportunity to achieve and create the “euro man” by this forging of a new demos, a new body politic: the euro man will be slightly browner than his predecessors, he will probably be profoundly anti-catholic and slightly islamic, but, in the end, the euro man will emerge still adhering to european values, if only in a more passive and acquiescent manner than before.
and, he will emerge from this fomented travail, a firm adherent to his protector and benefactor, the state of the euro union.
and, if all goes well, completely ignorant of his manufacture. and, completely ignorant to that which he is forfeit.
i believe that this vision and this process, using the advent of the most sophisticated communication techniques available, and absolute control of the media and news dissemination with a view towards shaping social policy, represents the ultimate triumph of the school of thought led by the law professor harold lasswell of yale and the social philosopher and avowed marxist harold laski of the london school of economics. i do not know who, if there is an eternity, has the more smug look on his face at this moment, whether it be carl marx, or vladimir lenin, or harold laski or harold lasswell or joseph goebbels, but i am very sure that it is not montesqieu, or locke or abraham lincoln.
look, if you will, to the provisions in “changing course” and in the “association agreement” between euro-med and egypt regarding the management of the media relations between islam and the united states, and islam and europe. ostensibly a tactic to create people to people diplomacy in order to build common paths to understanding and tolerance, and ostensibly to bypass and transcend the nation state, it is in fact a process controlled, shaped and manipulated by governmental agencies and bureaucrats to carefully control the dissemination of news, and to mold and shape public perceptions & attitudes with regard to what is thought about the news of the day.
in the end, people end up being just like modeling clay, resistant and stiff to manipulation when cold, but when warmed and massaged, easily formed into a myriad of shapes. the social planners will never move people past the early stages of outrage, but will continually massage and mold them through control of image and thought until they assume the desired shape, and political posture. i am betting goebbels has the biggest smile on his face, and see the realization of his thoughts and dreams.
no, this latter thought does not portend well to israel.
the same observations may be made of all levels of the “engagement” and “social interchange” envisioned by the left. while the exchange of educational opportunity and the like is promoted as a way to help people know each other more intimately as persons, these interchanges and engagements are also to be carefully orchestrated by government agency and bureaucrat, and the frequency and type of such exchanges are to be carefully massaged by the same, with a view towards management.
this is propaganda and management by highly educated social scientists, politicians and bureaucrats with a view toward achieving laski and lasswell’s dreams of societies that are free from conflict and damaging war. free from the cause of war. free from the obstreperous speech and conduct which rouses the passions and provides the portent for war.
free of passion. freed from aspiration. freed from the burden of thought, and comforted by widely held opinion. in numbers, truth, in truth, numbers.
such societies are, of course, also free from any burdens associated with thinking for themselves, and free from any serious decisions about with whom they associate, or what they might think of those with whom they are thrust into intimate association by forces other then themselves.
the thoughts, the passions, the upheavals of populations in whom nationalistic sentiments reside are entirely antithetical to the docile, passive and shaped populations envisioned by lasswell & laski, and envisioned by the authors of “changing course” and the shapers of the “association agreements” guiding the formation of the euro-med: make no mistake about it, the motives behind all of these things are shaped by the same visions.
and ultimately, by the same mistrusts.
lasswell & laski, george soros and madeline albright, the architects behind the curtain if you will of “changing course,” and the social planners of the euro union do not think that you and are capable of making up our own minds as to how we wish to live in the “complex world,” nor how we wish government to govern us in such a “complex world:” they think such decisions beyond us.
oddly enough, they do not think such decisions beyond them. they think themselves quite capable of deciding such matters, and, if you will recall lasswell and laski, deciding such matters without a whole lot of worthless discussion with us. simply put.
if you think this nonsense conjecture, please reflect for a moment on the recent debacle involving the conference on climate recently held in copenhagen, denmark. mere weeks before the convening the convention, the advocates of the global warming treaty were prepared to waltz into copenhagen and pass the treaty, a done deal, and this treaty would have created a massive edifice giving atmosphere science and state bureaucrats the authority to manage and determine global industrial production, pollution policies, and would have given other bureaucrats you have never met, never seen and never even heard of, the ability to impose personal income taxes and to have taken the revenues from the same and distributed it to the 3rd world in a massive scheme of income redistribution.
and this magnificent edifice would have been governed by rules and procedures you would never have known about and quite beyond your reach to influence or control.
and, every bit of it was built on lie.
or, as harold lasswell and harold laski would have said, truth found by scientist and social policy experts beyond our ken, and shaped in such a manner as to have guided us toward proper social action. or, in short, the entirety of global warming science appears to have been nothing less than a massive propaganda scheme to have conferred our governance upon unseen and inaccessible experts.
you think trying to get something out of microsoft relative to your computer is difficult, you try and find out something about the european union: friends, every bit of information in this post was obtained by dint of concerted effort, digging up documents that are hidden and secreted. does that reassure you, that the eurpean union which wants to reshape europe, doesn’t want to talk about it very damned much.
and, in a fashion that lasswell and laski would have applauded, they don’t want you worrying your pretty little heads very much about it either, and they sure as hell don’t want any europeans talking about the immigration policies they are shaping, nor talking about the muslims they intend to bring into europe.
in fact, to do so is against the law of the european union, and is a criminal defense. ask geert wilders, or lars hedegaard, or mark steyn in canada, what it is to come afoul of the european and canadian “hate speech” laws.
it turns out that the “new” socialist man, just as the old “soviet man,” and just as the docile fellow envisioned by laswell and laski, is one who keeps his mouth shut.
this much is clear. i believe that it is more than likely that this is entirely the reason that muslim labor is being brought into europe by european politicians, to give them precisely the rationale they need to impose the social controls that help them achieve the societies envisioned by those two great champions of leftist thought, harold lasswell and harold laski.
it is, of course, entirely obvious that lasswell and laski would have viewed the expression of my individual and individualistic views as counterproductive to an orderly society, as consuming worthless effort to accommodate, and, ultimately as uninformed and not relevant, because i am not one of the philosopher kings authorized by education, title, rank and bureaucratic grade to issue such pronouncements.
joseph stalin shot people in the back of the head to impose his views of the “soviet man.”
the only question is, how much will the european leftist unleash the hounds of war under their “control” against their fellow europeans to achieve the level of social control they seek. oh, yes, the create the crime and the unrest, so that they may control it, and, not coincidentally, so that they may control their fellow citizens by the repressive measures they will feel authorized to impose.
theo van gogh suggests that they are not hesitant to use violence, and the attack on kurt westergaard in denmark the other day confirms that islam will be a hound of war that will have no hesitancy to attack the more vocal elements in the population, when commanded by the leftist planners and bureaucrats.
they remind me so much of hitler’s minions, or stalin’s henchmen, take your pick. vicious mollusks in control of islamic pit bulls.
the only question remains, is who will deal with the muslims, when their “usefulness” has run its course?
john jay @ 01.04.2009
p.s. let me ask you. did you see anything in any of these publications from the left, … , anything at all, about values, or ethics or religious beliefs or moral conviction convictions, or about right and upholding truth? no, i don’t believe you did.
surely, harold lasswell is as contented as joseph goebbles, though i don’t believe he was given to smiling very much.