European Statism Gets Slapped Upside Its Collective Head

[eyer]

The longer your read/watch, the better this guy gets...

The setting:

• European Parliament, Strasbourg – 28 September 2011

• Speaker: Nigel Farage MEP, UKIP, Co-President of the EFD Group in the European Parliament (Europe of Freedom and Democracy)

• Debate: State of the Union address by the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso

You can either read the following transcript or view the utube (the vid includes a follow-up (Blue card) question and its response from the same speaker...

utube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MmG86lWhohU#!

Transcript here:

You told us this morning that the European Union is an inspiration. And whilst you admitted to there being one or two little economic problems, you made it perfectly clear that jobs and growth were to follow, that everything is going well – in fact you painted a vision that a new period of European renewal is upon us.

Now as a former communist yourself you probably remember the old soviet leaders getting up to give their speeches and telling everybody that there was a record harvest, or that tractor production figures were terribly good.

And they of course believed that history was on their side and in fact President Krushchev got up and said to the West ‘We will bury you,” so much did he believe in his own Union.

Well now of course we look back at that and we laugh. And I think in our tomorrows, people will look back at you, and they will say ‘how did this unelected man get all of this power?’

And how did Europe’s political class sitting in this room decide that the community method [federal] should replace national democracy.

I think people will look back in astonishment that we’ve surrendered democracy.

But what you want to do is to say, right, we have a European Union and what we’re going to have to do now is to have more of it. So as an architect – and you’re one of the key architects of the current failure – what we’re going to do, even though everything to date has been wrong – we’re going to do more of the same.

Now I thought that was a definition of madness. I can’t believe that is a rational response to any situation in which you find yourself. And far from it being a ‘State of the Union’ I would argue that the Union is in a state.

Because, just look at the confusion. We’ve got you as the President of the Commission. We’ve got a President of the European Parliament. We’ve got my old friend Herman Van Rompuy, who is the permanent president of the European Council. We’ve got the Poles – they’re now presidents temporarily [Poland holds six-month EU Council presidency] of the European Council.

We’ve got presidents all round this room, goodness me, even I am a president. I’m not sure what the collective noun for presidents is, perhaps it’s ‘incompetence’, I don’t know. But certainly when you take away democratic accountability, it’s clear nobody is in charge.

And it’s developing as a Union of intolerance. Anybody that stands up here and dares to give a political view that is different to the received wisdom is written off as mad, insane, violent, fascist – we’ve heard it for years from these people.

And the intolerance is so deep that when we get referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland that reject your view, you see it – as a political class – as a problem to be overcome.

So I’m very worried about the whole root of this Union. There is a new [euro-] nationalism that is sweeping Europe. You want to abolish the nation states – in your case, Mr Schulz, because you’re ashamed of your past – and you now want this flag and a new anthem to replace nation states and you don’t care how you get there. If you have to crush national democracy. If you have to oppose popular referendums – you just sweep this aside and say that it’s ‘populism’. Well, it’s not, it’s democracy.

And what is sweeping northern Europe now, starting off in April with that amazing result in the Finnish general election, is there is a new democratic revolution sweeping northern Europe. It’s not anti-European. It wants a Europe of trade; it wants a Europe of cooperation; it wants a Europe where we can do student exchanges, where we can work in each other’s capital cities – it wants those things.

But it does not want this European Union.

Frankly, you are all now yesterday’s men.

 

[eyer]

BTW:

Here's the website of the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) of which the speaker above is a member of...

...they have 12 members currently in the European Parliament (MEPs).

Read more about them...

http://www.ukipmeps.org/index.php?page=mypage&op=openPage&id=12&title=About-UKIP

 

[Sean]

UKIP are the BNP with better suits.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

UKIP are the BNP with better suits.

Of course they are..

"And it’s developing as a Union of intolerance. Anybody that stands up here and dares to give a political view that is different to the received wisdom is written off as mad, insane, violent, fascist – we’ve heard it for years from these people.

And the intolerance is so deep that when we get referendums in France, the Netherlands and Ireland that reject your view, you see it – as a political class – as a problem to be overcome."

Tea Partiers, one and all...

“I always use the word extreme. That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”
Senator Chuck Schumer

The liberals have fully absorbed the lessons taught by their ideological progenitors, the Nazi socialists and Soviet communists. They understand that the big lie, if endlessly repeated, is extremely effective. Its purpose is to establish in the minds of the target audience an automatic stimulus-response connection, a Pavlovian conditioned reflex: capitalist = fat cat; George Bush = moron; Sarah Palin = idiot; Barack Obama = genius, any Kennedy = gift to mankind, etc. Ask the liberal spouting any of the above for proof that, say, Sarah Palin is an idiot or Barack Obama an intellectual giant, and the answer would be a puzzled stare -- why, everyone knows that she is a moron and he a towering intellect, so it must be true. Just repeat your slogan often enough, and once embedded in the minds of the people the mantra becomes reality for them. So effective is this technique that the left has made the former Alaska governor unelectable in the view of independents and even many conservatives, in effect dictating the available choices for the conservatives....
If tomorrow they decide to call the Tea Party members, say, Ghoulish Ghibellines, the moniker will stick though the people who would use it will have not the remotest idea of what it means (they would probably decide it denotes a particularly vicious breed of goblins). Why do you think liberals have such a conniption fit whenever Obama is called a socialist -- a neat and catchy label? It comes straight out of the liberal playbook and potentially is very effective.
Victor Volsky
The American Thinker

“I used to think the left wing was the home of tolerance, open-mindedness, respect for all viewpoints…
But, now I’ve learned the truth the hard way.“
Juan Williams

The big lesson for me [working at NPR] was the intolerance of so-called liberals. I say intolerance because I grew up as a black Democrat in Brooklyn, N.Y., and always thought it was the Archie Bunker Republicans who practiced intolerance. My experience at NPR revealed to me how rigid liberals can be when their orthodoxy is challenged. I was the devil for simply raising questions, offering a different viewpoint, not shutting my mouth about the excesses of liberalism — a bad guy, a traitor to the cause.
Juan Williams

If you quietly accept and go along no matter what your feelings are, ultimately you internalize what you're saying, because it's too hard to believe one thing and say another. I can see it very strikingly in my own background. Go to any elite university and you are usually speaking to very disciplined people, people who have been selected for obedience.
Noam Chomsky

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

UKIP are the BNP with better suits.

Searching for UKIP on google turns up the UKIP website, with the following disclaimer...

"Libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union"

Seems to me that there are some issues if you must insist right up front that you're "non-racist". I mean, I've rarely seen anyone preface their introduction with "We're a _________ non-racist party" before.. Unless you know, they don't consider themselves racist, but others do..

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Perhaps they simply understand the tactic of their opposition.

We see it here with the Tea Party. They're "racists..."

Then they go and vote for Herman Cain and they're racists trying to prove that they are not racists...

It's the tactic...

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Perhaps they simply understand the tactic of their opposition.

We see it here with the Tea Party. They're "racists..."

Then they go and vote for Herman Cain and they're racists trying to prove that they are not racists...

It's the tactic...

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Riiight..

Any time I've ever heard someone lead in with "I'm not a racist", it's always been followed with "But"..

Just a small amount of research shows that SeanH seems to have the right of it regarding the UKIP.

When you talk about immigration "watering down the British identity", repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act, Ending the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies, and withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.. You're beginning to sound like the BNP light.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I know, common culture is bad. One has to be "diverse."

Of course, the only places where Socialism works is in small homogeneous nations where every looks and thinks alike thanks to hundreds of years of a common culture. In polyglot nations, people begin fighting for group spoils and labeling each other negatively, e.g., you're a racist, you're a welfare class, you're non-national...,

So, you see, you know that if you are for culture, borders, and language (maybe even religion, or against the imposition of a new religion), then you know that your label will be racist.