Edward Kennedy, the nation buster, dies

The passing away of the Kennedy Clan

Yesterday an evil U.S. politician died. He was an effective enemy of his own nation and therefore of the whole Western world. His name is of course Edward Kennedy, scion of the Kennedy clan. With his passing the power of the Kennedy dynasty is effectively over. It´s a good thing.

Edward Kennedy, was a Democratic Senator for Massachusets.

Kennedy as the enabler of the Other

The worst evil Senator Edward Kennedy helped to visit on the U.S. was the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. Until then there had been a quota system for immigration, which ensured that the overwhelming majority of all immigrants was of European stock. This ensured that the ethnic balance of the U.S. was not upset. With the passing of the 1965 Immigration Act this was changed and now immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Muslim World and South-America could enter the U.S.A. and become ´citizens`.

Other treasonous legislation by Senator Kennedy

This was no incident in Senator Kennedy´s political life. The Senator also supported amnesty for illegals in 1986. And the Civil Rights act of 1991, which vastly expanded the possibilities for minorities to sue their employers for `discrimination´.

The biggest act of betrayal was the 1965 Immigration Act. It paved the way for the multi-cultural ideology, because once a nation does not have a culturally homogenous population anymore, the dominance of its culture becomes in question and Multi-culturalism is the expression of that questioning and undermining.

The foundation of treason was deception

With millions of non-westerners in the cities of the U.S., the U.S. stopped being a Nation and became in effect an empire. Senator Kennedy enabled this transformation by deceiving his countrymen. He deceived them by declaring that the Immigration Act would not change anything:

First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.

Multi-culturalism and Foreign policy

Generally a nation´s foreign policy is a continuation of it´s home policy by other means. As the U.S. created a new image of a Multi-Cultural empire at home, its foreign policy changed. This was most notably illustrated with the dissolution of Multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. Here the U.S. declared the Serbs to be the bad guys, the originators of the dissolution of the Yugoslav multin-ethnic empire and twice formed military and political coalitions that severly damaged the Serb position in their ancestral homelands in the Krajina and Kosovo. And so Multi-culturalism got a new lease on life.

For the time being. Because eventually U.S.-led multi-culturalism it will go the same way as Senator Kennedy went.

Milosevic dies in The Hague

Slobodan Milosevic, the former President of Yugoslavia and later of Serbia died in The Hague today at the age of 64. He had been handed over to the international Court of Justice in The Hague as part of a deal to allow Yugoslavia to re-enter the international order after NATO attacked Serbia's Kosovo province in 1999.

NATO under the leadership of President Clinton and Tony Blair attacked Serbia over the long standing oppression of its Muslim (Bosnian and Albanian) and Catholic Yugoslavs.

After the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, multi-ethnic Yugoslavia exploded, with the Croats, Bosnians and Albanians clamoring for independence. Slobodan Milosevic was scapegoated for the violence by the media and international political organisations such as the UN. Because of the oppression of the Albanians in Kosovo a province of
Serbia NATO attacked the Serb forces in Kosovo. The removal of the Serb Army however has led to an almost complete ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo by Albanians who were not stopped by NATO.

After the withdrawal of the Serbian Army from Kosovo, Milosevic was removed from power and handed over to the International Tribunal in The Hague to try Milosevic for his crimes against Albanians.

Milsosevic put up a spirited defense against the allegations. The Serbs have always maintained that atrocities were committed by maverick militias and not by troops under control of the Serb leadership.

Whatever the truth it has turned out that the multi-ethnic model has failed in Yugoslavia. NATO has invaded the territory of a souvereign state to meddle in its internal affairs and it has nothing to show for it. The invasion of Kosovo resembled the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein in 1990. The "humanitarian" invasion was a precedent that was used to justify the US-UK coalition invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Secretary of State Rice is now calling for an invasion of Iran, on the grounds of Iran's disagreeing with US policy on nuclear arms.

However, the example of Kosovo shows that the use of military force does not translate into political gain or cultural change. Because the international press generally agreed with the attack on Serbia, they failed to point out the lack of success in having the Serbs and Albanians live together in a Multi-ethnic state.

The US is now having similar problems in Iraq and Afghanistan were US forces are under constant attack from an elusive enemy and where religious and ethnic groups are increasingly attacking each other. This is creating a peaceful and orderly society a difficult an impossibility. Iraq can become a terrorist haven in the future and an exporter of unrest, crime and throughout the Middle East in the same way that former Yugoslavia is a exporter of crime and disorder in Europe. This is a dream come true for Al-Qa'ida.

Whenever Westerners are debating and deciding on the use of military force, the question must be: will the action increase order and stability or decrease it? If the military action will likely damage a local source of order and social organisation the correct choice is to avoid military action, especially if it implies occupation.

The Milosevic and Saddam Hussains of this world can be more useful and agreeable than the real alternatives that will present themselves.

Former Soviet Dissident warns of EU totalitarian drift

From Brussels Journal by the brilliant and very honorable Paul Belien an interview with a former Soviet dissident. Vladimir Bukovsky opposed the Soviet Utopia of progress and equality. Speaking on invitation of Fidesz, the Conservative Hungarian European fraction in the EU parliament he called the EU a:

“monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

Signs of the EU's totalitarian nature and similarity to the old USSR were that the:

ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

It is remarkable how similar this is to the present Western States that are trying to abolish their people by Multiculturalism and Mass immigration. In this set-up the back ground of the population does not matter. Religion, ethnic background, gender are all regarded as irrelevant. Instead only the state defined markers of belonging are acceptable: the citizen has his social fiscal number, identity card, living on the state territory and status in the population register to decide what his rights are.

All citizens are perfectly equal to each other of course and any indications that this is different in reality have to be denied, to be heavily propagandised by the Mass Media, and by the class of politicians and civil servants. And these are not answerable to the citizens in any meaningful way: the average European Member of Parliament has 6 minutes speaking time alotted to him per YEAR! Not that the European Parliament has much to say. Basically it decides whether to approve the annual budget or not. It has zero power over EU-legislation, the business of the European Commission, accounting for 50 percent of all legislation on the national level of the respective member states.

Bukovsky points out the many similarities between the growth of the UE State apparatus and powers and the Soviet State and its power. The bureacracy got more and more to say. Opinion was circumcised by political correctness, especially with regards to equality of man and ethnic differences.

Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes.

The socio-economic system became more and more stuck. Ethnic minorities increased, especially Muslims from the Southern republics of the USSR. When it became obvious that the system could not be made to work, that increasing state power and bureaucracy were counterproductive, elites lost faith in the system and abandoned it. And then?

The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles.

Ethnic Nationalism which has been repressed by the all-powerful state will not have dissapeared but have become more powerful underground:

Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening.

That is the effect of bureaucracy and ideology on societies. When reality does not conform to ideology the buraucracy tries to force reality. When reality still does not conform, they will criminilize dissent, so that people will not turn against those in power, the politicians and the bureacrats. In the end everybody will be caught up in a conspiracy of lies. Private dissent will run in objections because people feel instinctively that changing the system will lead to a breakdown of civil order. Finally the need to reform become overpowering and ethnic hatreds that have been buried will explode with a vengeance.

I remember visiting Yugoslavia in the early 80ies. People knew that war would break out if Tito and the Communists would go. Finally the system tottered on for a while after Tito died. People did not really want civil war and they tried to keep the genie in the bottle for as long as they could.

And now chaos is the main export of Yugoslavia. All across that new multi-national, multi-ethnic EU-empire with a growing Muslim presense.

A soft landing is possible, but we would have to dismantle the Union and end our allegiance to the idea of equality. The most murderous idea in the last hundred year or so.