England har jo i årevis støttet Tyrkiets optagelse i EU, så nogen overraskelse burde denne udmelding jo ikke komme som. Og alligevel! Manden er jo svoren EU skeptiker. Han er valgt på den politik. Men der er tilsyneladende èn sag som står over alle andre, uanset hvilket parti en engelsk politiker måtte komme fra. Loyaliteten overfor USA, som anser Tyrkiets medlemsskab af NATO som vital for alliancens overlevelse. Normalt betragter jeg Amerika som en uundværlig partner, men denne form for indflydelse på Europæisk politik er uacceptabel. Ganske enkelt.

Iøvrigt vil NATO inden længe få sin betydning væsentlig beskåret. Den forventede pinlige exit fra Afghanistan vil efterlade en følelse af magtesløshed og fiasko. Uenigheden om medlemslandenes indsats i denne krig vil blusse op og løsne bindingerne mellem USA og Europa.
Oh ja , der vil blive afholdt store møder og mange taler, men mit gæt er at det fremover vil blive overordentlig svært for NATO at involvere sig i noget større militært project på grund af manglende opbakning.
Alliancen vil ganske enkelt blive stærkt svækket.

Camerons sleske omtale af Erdogan og Tyrkiets rolle i mellemøstem behøver ikke megen omtale. Man kan godt spekulere over hvor han henter sin politiske viden om forholdene i dette store land, som i disse år er ved at omdannes til en regulær islamisk shariastat. Og så Erdogan. Mellemøstens nye infant terrible, som ved at tillade provokerende aktioner rettet mod Israel er med til at øge risikoen for udbrud af regulære krigshandlinger i dette farlig hjørne af verden.

Men som nævnt er Cameron valgt på sin EU skepsis (og delvist på Browns upopularitet) så hvad er så meningen med den sang? Jeg mener, der må da for fanden være forbindelse mellem denne konservative opkoplings to hjernehalvdele.
Kan det tænkes at han satser på at landene bliver så uenige, at EU bliver tvunget til at returnere en del af den suverænitet, som Bruxelles har tilranet sig de sidste mange år? Tror det ikke. Han ligner én som for enhver pris vil tilfredsstille sin partner (og USA) for at kunne beholde regeringsmagten så længe som muligt. Jeg synes at de britiske vælgere, og os andre, som havde håbet på forandring ved udskiftning af labor har grund til at være temmelig frustrerede, for ikke at sige rystede. Fra asken til ilden.
Hans udtalelser om den engelske regerings forhold til Indien viser bare hvor klam den mand er. Lad der snarest muligt blive luftet ud i Downing street 10, skulle jeg til at sige. Men hvem skulle rykke ind i stedet???
Er det land da fuldstændig fortabt?

Hvis disse politikere når et niveau omkring minister, og helt tydeligt hvis de bliver statsministre eller lignende, sker der et markant skifte. De bliver EU begejstrede, de hylder Islam som det bedste siden skabelsen, hader deres egen sekulære kultur, der har skabt velstående samfund uden sidestykke i historien, og er fast overbeviste om at det asiatiske land Tyrkiet absolut skal i EU.

Hvem presser dem, og med hvilke midler? Jeg tror ikke rigtigt på (endnu) at de har været hyklere og løgnere fra starten.

http://www.axess.se/tv/webbtv.aspx?id=167

Sikke dog en lallenaiv, folkeforagtende , uvidende storbytosse, ham TS

Her er han som admiral på den synkende skude Poltiken A/S – ingen fatter hans kurs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Eastlake_-_Napoleon _on_the_Bellerophon.jpg

Og her er han i dyb depression, da han indser, at det afgørende slag er tabt -
de kulturradigale verdensfrelsere og de gloriepudsende gut-menschen er endegyldigt slået
på flugt over hele linjen.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/DelarocheNapoleon.jp g/446px-DelarocheNapoleon.jpg

Det er næsten skræmmende, så godt Tøger-tossen ligner sit store forbillede, ikke sandt ?

Tøger Seidenfaden: “… men faktisk er det bare folket der er problemet.”
juli 13th, 2007

Svenske Axess Television har været en tur i København for at interviewe Politikens Tøger Seidenfaden, og det er der blevet en timelang udsendelse ud af under overskriften EU är fantastiskt. I den officielle præsentation citeres Seidenfaden for at “Folkomröstningar undergräver demokratin”, og det måtte vel være en behændig opstramning – troede jeg…

Thomas Gür, Axess: Danmark og København er EU-modstanderernes hovedstad – kan man sige det?

Tøger Seidenfaden: Det kan man sige på grund af de folkeafstemninger vi har haft, hvor vi to gange har stemt nej, men faktisk er det bare folket der er problemet.

Thomas Gür, Axess: Det er folket som er problemet?

Tøger Seidenfaden: Ja for politikerne, organisationerne, og massemedierne, de er jo alle sammen meget EU-positive, også i Danmark.

test.kimpoulsen.com/wp29/?p=4740

Er der en kilde på det, som er til at få fat i?

Author Profile Page Hugh | July 28, 2010 6:35 AM | Reply

The article is excellent, but the author still backs away from directly discussing the reasons for keeping Turkey out of the E.U., and instead suggests that when “economic development” gives Turkey a higher GDP and makes its citizens richer, then will be the time to give Turkey full membership with the right of free movement of Turks all over the E.U.

Here are some reservations:

Note that West himself writes as if Turkey can still be described as “Kemalist” but does not explain how Erdogan is undoing Kemalism. West writes as if “Ataturk’s state” has not already been partly undone: “It is surely in Europe’s interest that Ataturk’s state survives the next few decades” (why only “the next few decades”?). Ataturk, recognizing that Islam was what kept Turkey backward, understood that he could not engage in a direct assault on it (an intelligently ruthless man, and a war hero, who benefitted from Turkey being in a stage of near-collapse, he nonetheless recognized the enduring power of Islam), but he could institute a series of measures that would constrain Islam as a political and social force. West does not tell Cameron, or us, that over the past ten years Erdogan and his men have been undoing Kemalism, and they have taken advantage of the E.U. requirements to do so — that is, systematically weakening the power of the secularists, in the army the judiciary, all the while sweetly explaining that they are trying to “comply with the requirements for admission to the E.U.” by giving Turks greater civil rights, while in fact the strong state that Kemalism requires — for the hold of Islam on the minds of its adherents is very strong, and Islam is a permanent force, while Kemalism must be kept in place by methods people in the advanced West may not understand.

And again and again West himself comes back to matters of economic development, as if that is what would make a difference. He does it in several places:

“Personally I’m quite happy for Turkey to have our EU place, if they really want it; or to be a fellow member of a new free trade area along EFTA lines, with restrictions on free movement until some point when its median income reach western European levels.

But until that happens membership of the EU is a non-starter, and everyone knows it.”

This jaunty tone of feigned nonchalance — “personally I’m quite happy for Turkey to have our EU place” is inappropriate here. And West keeps coming back, not to Islam, not the ideology of Islam which is in the minds of a great many Turks,and moves them, but rather to the level of income.

He writes, for example, that in order for Turkey to become a a full-fledged member of the E.U. with no “restrictions on free movement” “its median income [must] reach ] western European levels.”

And he returns to this business of economic development as the key criterion in his penultimate sentence:

“It is surely in Europe’s interest that Atatürk’s state survives the next few decades, and Turkey acquires western European levels of income; were to this happen, opposition to Turkish membership and free movement would recede.”

That sentence is wrong. It is surely in Europe’s intererst that Ataturk’s state, that is the supporters of Kemalism, return to power in the next election, and not only re-impose all the constraints on Islam that Erdogan managed to undo, but that they learn the lesson that they must work to undermine Islam in the minds of Turks, to extend secularism by showing all the ways in which whatever “progress” Turkey has made has been a result not of Islam, but despite Islam,and because of Kemalism, for it is Islam that explains the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim states and societies.

And then West should have added: And whatever the Kemalists manage to achieve, they should not expect that the E.U. will allow Turkey — ever — to become a full-fledged member. The imperilled states of Western Europe — where Muslim use of such effective instruments of the Jihad as the Money Weapon, propaganda, campaigns of Da’wa directed at the psychically and economically marginal, and demographiic conquest — cannot allow in, as their most populous member, eighty million Turks, almost all of them identifying themselves as Muslims who, as they come into even closer contact with Infidels as they live in that very West, s they are, the evidence suggests, more likely to become less secular, and more self-consciously Muslim. This has been observed with Muslim populations all over Western Europe. The first generation may come, and work to stay alive. But the second, and the third — they know all the tricks to wangle benefits, they have not even that residual gratitude that some of the first generation may have felt, or if not gratitude, at least an awareness of a certain degree of luck in being allowed to leave Muslim hell-holes for the advanced West, and thus felt an unwillingness to rock any boats, while later generations have no such inhibitions.

And what will Turks moving about the E.U. experience? Will life be wonderful for them in the E.U.? Will not the natural disapointments and resentments they will feel (as the least educated, and lowest, on the economic totem pole) come to be e viewed through the ready prism of Islam, which provides the permanent scapegoat of the offending Infidel, and thus make them, by degrees, more and more hostile to the circumambient Infidels among whom they are now permitted, without checks, to freely move, to freely settle?

When even someone in a piece that criticizes Cameron for his views on Turkey, one that takes him to task, rakes him over the coals, shakes and bakes him, nonetheless pulls back from declaring why opposition to Turkish membership in the E.U. and “free movement of Turks” should be on the fact of Islam, and the consequences to Europe of allowing a country that is 99% Muslim to become part of the European Commuihnity, giving eighty million Turkish Muslims (and who knows how many others might, as Muslims, be given Turkish citizenship by Turkish government officials if the price is right?) and instead focuses on the level of “economic development,” then a problem of clarity, of seeing things right to the end, remains.

It would be better to say openly that Turkey cannot be admitted to the E.U. because of Islam. If, somehow in Turkey, after the next election that Erdogan loses, the secularists, having been given the scare of their lives, return to power, they must both ruthlessly and cleverly — in the spirit of Ataturk — work to diminish Islam, ideally — it will take many decades — to a cultural artifact, merely the penultimate layer in the palimpsest of Anatolian life, now in the hands of those promoting Kemalism on stilts, or Kemalism Plus, with that “plus” possibly including the open encouragement of a “search for roots” which will allow “the Turks” — Muslim Turks — to discover that many of them had ancestors who were Armenians and Greeks and Jews, turkicized and islamized in order to escape the burden of being treated as dhimmis, or in certain places and at certain times, forcibly converted. Perhaps the example of Emir Kusturica, born a “Muslim” in Yugoslavia, who a few years ago declared that he saw no reason to keep calling himself a “Muslim” merely because, several hundred years before, e his Serbian ancestors had, while enduring Ottoman rule, converted to Islam,, had himself baptised in the Serbian Orthodox Church. A few million Kusturicas in Turkey would do that country wonders.

Who is David Cameron to say what the ‘real Islam’ is?

Jeg ved ikke, om han er mere kyniker end uvidende. Jeg tænker på Browns historiske nedgøring af egne kernevælgeres bekymring med ordene “she is just a bigotted woman.” Den herskende klasse lever simpelt hen i sit eget univers, med egne spilleregler og vilkår. De kender ikke den rigtige verden og ønsker ikke at gøre det.

Churchill derimod: Han var også en overklassedreng, men fik en ikke-politisk uddannelse som officer og havde et ikke-politisk job i hæren (krig i Sudan!), før han blev politiker. Han kendte den virkelige verden.

Som I ofte citerer her: Vi lever i interessante tider.

Cameron is falling into exactly the same trap as his predecessors, by trying to play the theologian. Tony Blair called the Koran a “progressive” book, while Jacqui Smith called Islamic terrorism “anti-Islamic” activities, while the phrase “religion of peace” has been used so much by well-meaning politicians that it is now used, exclusively, in an ironic sense by cynics.

Who is David Cameron to say what the ‘real Islam’ is?

Man husker det afsnit af “Islam, What the West Needs to Know”, (lige i begyndelsen af filmen, mener jeg) hvor Blair kloger sig på Koranen, som han “ofte læser i”. Da han bliver bedt om at være lidt konkret, får han pludselig travlt med en aftale han har. Ubetalelig scene.

Melanie Phillips er sandt at sige heller ikke begejsret for Cameron i sin seneste Spectator kommentar:

1940 this most definitely is not. Weep for Britain. It has just become even more unsafe – and British politics a lot more disgusting.

Hun mener dog ikke den højtuddannede mandsling er en idiot, men en stor kyniker. Mon ikke svenskerne og englænderene konkurrerer om at have vesteuropas værste ledere ? Jeg tror englænderne fører………….

Sikke dog en idiot!!!

Er det virkelig det bedste de engelske konservative kan hoste op med i disse dage?

En YBER-naiv tosse-liberal forgyldt dillerdreng, med fløde hår!?

Ynkeligt.