eurealist.co.uk

Last of the Famous International Playboys

The expeditious and professional deployment of US troops on humanitarian assistance missions to areas devastated by the Boxing Day Tsunami has quite publicly embarrassed the French government — on live television, no less. Yet another reason to thank the US Armed Forces. To see what is sure to be one of the most exceptional moments broadcast on the French evening news all year long, make sure that you click here to watch this evening’s news. (Latest version of Windows Media Player required. Before 2 PM Eastern time to-morrow, it’ll be the first displayed. After that, click on the one labeled 10/01/2005 - JT 20h.)

For days now, the US military has been getting favorable coverage on the French nightly news due to its response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami. But tonight’s broadcast was simply astounding. At 8 minutes into the broadcast, anchor David Pujadas begins a discussion of the disaster response and introduced a report on the American deployment:

First off, here is the powerful American machinery in action. For 24 hours now, there has been a landing ["débarquement"] taking place — there is no other word — while helicopters continue the distribution [of humanitarian aid].

The report begins with an improvised helipad and then shows US airmen distributing “survival packages” of food, clothes and demountable shelters. In addition to showing those in need that they have not been forgotten, these supplies will allow their recipients to live for another day, says the narrator.

Read full details here

Britain has been in denial for too long
By Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn writing about the Queens Christmas speech covers quite a bit of ground, from the sodomy of the African slave under the Caribbean moon, to the fact that many young black males are “homophobic”. The relief operation in the Indian Ocean countries making up the core group co-ordinating relief efforts - America, Australia, India, Japan - are three-quarters British-derived.

The same can be said of the most effective second-tier nations involved, such as Singapore and Malaysia. A healthy culture should be able to weigh the pros and cons of the Britannic inheritance in a balanced way. At it core is an argument that we are destroying ourselves as a nation, as we are continually bombarded with guilt inducing multiculturalist twaddle from the left wing, who seem very happy to see the end of British pride.

According to my understanding he is however wrong to attribute “multiculturalism” as a suicide cult conceived by the Western elites, I understood that it, along with its partner “Political Correctness” arrived in the west via America from the communist movement in German early last century. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, which as a concept was codified by the Frankfurt Institute, whose members being Jewish, were not welcome in German with the rise of the Nazis, and left Germany to set up shop in New York. Political Correctness and multiculturalism are part of Marxist Critical theory. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down, it is igneous because it sets up a system of self-criticising which just feed of itself and eventually will bring down our society, I do know how outlandish this sounds, however if you would care to look at the present state of our society you will see that it is not outlandish at all because it is happening all the time as Mark Steyn points out in his article…

“For example, last week the Guardian forced itself to consider the awkward fact that many young black males are “homophobic”. This would be a disadvantage if one were hoping to make a career in the modern Tory party, but, on the other hand, if one’s ambitions incline more to becoming a big-time gangsta rapper, it’s a goldmine. Don’t blame Jamaican men, though.
After all, who made them homophobic? The “vilification of Jamaican homophobia”, says Decca Aitkenhead, is just an attempt to distract from the real culprit: “It’s a failure to recognise 400 years of Jamaican history, starting with the sodomy of male slaves by their white owners as a means of humiliation.
“Slavery laid the foundations of homophobia,” writes Miss Aitkenhead. “For us to vilify Jamaicans for an attitude of which we were the architects is shameful. Jamaicans weren’t the architects of their ideas about homosexuality; we were.”
I should have known. It’s our fault: yours, mine, the great white Queen’s, for all her shameless attempts to climb aboard the diversity bandwagon.
…
And it always will be. It’s 40 years since Jamaican independence, but in 400 years, if there are any Englishmen left (which is demographically doubtful), Guardian columnists will still be sticking it to them for the psychological damage of colonialism.
….
How heartening to know that, at a time when so many quaint old British traditions are being abolished - foxhunting, free speech, national sovereignty - the traditional British Leftist colonial guilt complex is alive and well. Even with hardly any colonies.

But “multiculturalism” is really a suicide cult conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures, but to deny their own. And that’s particularly unworthy of the British, whose language, culture and law have been the single greatest force for good in this world.

This isn’t merely a question for the history books, but the issue that underpins all the others facing the country today, not least the European Constitution: at a time when the benefits of the Britannic inheritance are more and more apparent everywhere else, how come Britain has no use for them?”

As expected Dr Richard North has a post on the Conservative green paper His posts concludes:
“Although it is primarily a consultation document, this represents a major shift in the Conservative Party – a genuine step towards repatriating an unpopular and failed EU policy.

With Michael Howard having committed to bringing this about by national legislation if necessary, this also represents a major challenge to UKIP. For all their rhetoric, UKIP have not been able to come up with any credible (or any) proposals for managing British fisheries, leaving Owen Paterson to remark that, if the fishermen and the nation wants to restore our fisheries to national and local control, there is only one option at the ballot box.”

But it is in the comments the real problem, other than the Tories actually winning the election is discussed, I suppose it’s a matter of paying your money and taking your choice. Personally I feel the Tories have let us down to many times in the past to be allowed the soft option of asking us to trust them, without a solid watertight commitment to stand by their word this time round, and I will look for a firmer ground to their argument than hoping that the EU will not act to preserve its powers.

willoughby de broke:
Hang on, hang on. Michael Howard did indeed promise - in a letter to John Whittingdale MP -to introduce national legislation to regain control of our fisheries if he was unable to convince every one of our competitors - sorry, partners - in the EU to agree to the hand-back as part of his ‘renegotiation’ strategy.
The difficulty for Mr Howard is that the CFP is embedded in and central to the all EU treaties which successive Conservative and Labour Governments and Parliaments have signed and ratified. Britain would therefore be in clear breach of its treaty obligations were Parliament to pass an Act to repatriate our fisheries policy. We would be hauled in front of the Luxembourg Court of Justice and Further Integration before you could say “Manuel Barroso”. Verdict: guilty on all counts as charged. What then? Will Mr Howard back down, or will he expect British taxpayers to pay the unlimited fines to which we would be liable and provide the money for a fleet of armed fisheries protection vessels to stop other member states fishermen entering waters to which they believe are theirs by right? Or will he recognise that the only way he can redeem his pledge is by withdrawing from the EU? We may still need the protection vessels but the cost would hardly register when set against our annual EU membership fees of £11 billion ..

Richard North:
“With what ultimate threat if the rest of the EU disagree with what they want?”
Parliament is still sovereign. If parliament so decides, it can remove the UK from the CFP. And once again, the thing to be careful about is not taking a legalistic view of a political construct. Of course the commission could refer the UK to the ECJ - in the same way that the council could have referered France and Germany to the ECJ on their failure to conform with the Growth and Stability Pact. You have to ask yourself whether the commission is likely to take the political risk of referring the UK in the knowledge that the UK will not pay any fines. We simply call their bluff. Whenever a big country has done this, the commission has backed off.

Times Online - World
Eurosceptics unite across Continentnto fight constitution
By Athony Browne, Brussels Correspondent

OPPONENTS of the European constitution across the continent are joining forces to begin a pan-European No campaign, marking the occasion with a letter in The Times and other European newspapers.

The European No Campaign, bankrolled by British businesses, is run by a German, Thomas Rupp, from the heart of Europe’s financial centre, the City of London. His office overlooking the Monument to the fire of London, is shared with Britain’s Vote No campaign, the best funded and most organised in Europe.

The aim is to pool expertise and tactics in the referendums to be held in 11 EU member states. Today’s letter, signed by 42 prominent campaigners from 14 countries, including a cross-party selection of British MPs, demands that “public funds are not misused to give ‘yes’ campaigners an advantage”. It also insists that governments “respect the fact that a national ‘no’ vote means the proposed constitution must be rejected”.

The letter coincides with a €375,000 (£262,000) party hosted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg to promote the constitution, including travel for 100 journalists. The Parliament is expected overwhelmingly to endorse the constitution in a vote tomorrow.

The European No Campaign is an unlikely coalition of businesses, trade unionists, peace campaigners, democracy campaigners, socialists, conservatives and greens. UK businesses fear that the constitution will enhance trade union power. French socialists worry that it is too free-market. The Danes are worried that it undermines democracy, the Dutch are worried about their national identity, and Irish peace campaigners say that it turns the EU into a military power.