French And Dutch Patriots Rout The New World Order

Posted on Wednesday, June 08 at 08:38 by Diogenes
In the thirty-three months it took to write and then rewrite the new constitution in a frantic bluster of secret negotiations and self-congratulatory banquets, and at a cost to taxpaying munchkins of untold millions of euros, nothing could have prepared them for this dark hour. For these pampered viceroys of a revived Roman empire who take upon themselves the title of 'Excellency' work to a timetable set by a higher master - a master who jealously stalks the corridors of power, from Whitehall to Washington, Beijing to Moscow, looking to devour those who serve less than flawlessly and without an eye on the clock. It's five minutes to twelve, and the ticking has rudely stopped. The master is furious. This wasn't meant to happen. The propaganda has always worked in the past. The entire left-right spectrum of the French political and Catholic establishment, backed by a nimble phalanx of pseudo experts and geriatric SWAT teams of white-haired university professors with impressive titles, joined with both 'respectable society' and the drug-addled icons of popular Parisian culture to remind all good citizens through the whoring mainstream media and their legion of multiple-orifice presstitutes that it was their duty to say "Oui". But the sons and daughters of French liberty, seething with an indignant rage shared by millions of Europeans denied the right to vote, confronted the globalist beast and yelled "Non!" The political tsunami was felt from the west coast of Ireland to the east coast of Greece. "Non! The Earthquake," proclaimed the headline on the front page of La Tribune, while the globalist newspaper Libération attacked the rebellious French, describing the result as representing "a general disaster and an epidemic of populism, which is sweeping everything in its path". The May 30 edition of the Europhile British daily, The Guardian, went further and claimed boldly: "Yesterday was nothing less than the beginning of the second French revolution." The mainstream German press, constrained as it is by a general prohibition on all talk of alternatives to the European Union, could only speculate on what might have happened had the German people been allowed to vote. "The fears that surfaced during the debate in France are not foreign to us," said Henrik Uterwedde, Deputy Director of the German-French Institute in Ludwigsburg. If Germans had been granted a referendum, he continued, "the discussion would have gone exactly the same way". "The French voted for us," was a common refrain on the streets of Frankfurt. The German parliament, traditionally fearful of allowing ordinary citizens to vote in referenda, in much the same way it fears any objective discussion about the lies contained within the pages of Germany's official 'history' books, treasonously ratified the treaty with a comfortable majority on Friday, May 27, following a series of quisling pro-EU speeches reminiscent of East Germany's subservience to the Soviet Union. This audacious betrayal of the German people took place against a backdrop in which the mainstream media made no mention of the planned NATO and US neoconservative takeover of the German armed forces, an agenda concealed in cleverly worded provisions in Articles 1-14 and 1-16 of the treaty. Indeed, mindful of the wrath of the City of London and its insidious international banking operations, already responsible for instigating and financing two world wars to break the spirit of the German people, the federal media shut down all discussion of the constitution's implications for other independent European armies. As neatly summarised by journalist and peace campaigner Israel Shamir, the French saved their fellow Europeans from a fate worse than death by killing a document that would forever bind sovereign national armies to NATO, placing them under the control of neo-fascist Washington and its Satanic, Zionist puppet masters in London. "The proposed constitution was about to subordinate the European Armed Forces to the NATO, meaning to the US command," wrote Israel Shamir in the May 30 edition of TheTruthSeeker.co.uk. "But for [the] wisdom of the French voters, in the next US invasion, Europeans would be forced to serve in the invading force, whether it is Iran or Russia that the Neo-cons will decide to subdue." Wrong-footed, winded and fumbling, the flabby, grey-faced politicians and lawyers are out in force: explaining, soothing, prevaricating. It's spin time again. Like a host of Armani-suited Jabba the Hutts, sliming their way from one government-controlled mainstream media outlet to the next, Europe's political degenerates are putting the shine on a humiliating defeat with words carefully chosen lest they unwittingly acknowledge the power that ordinary people still possess. Britain's best-known murderer, Tony Blair: "Time for reflection". Germany's outgoing Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder: "Regrettable". France's Traitor-in-Chief himself, Jacques Chirac: "I take note". The elites are busy scribbling the notes of which Chirac spoke. Legally, the treaty requires ratification in all 25 European Union member states, yet angry Bilderbergers such as Jose Manuel Barroso, the current head of the European Commission, are already hissing that either dissenting nations would be 'invited' to vote again until they get it 'right', or that something may miraculously emerge from the small print previously overlooked, which would allow for a more liberal interpretation of the rules. "We cannot say that the treaty is dead," Barroso warned ominously. But the Dutch disagree. As I write, millions of them are kicking the corpse of this odious treaty; and should there be yet one twitch remaining in the body of its articles, the British and the Danes will finish the job. For American readers unacquainted with life on the European continent, understand that this is nothing less than the start of a full-blooded political insurrection that cuts right across the artificial political divide. While the wheels have come off the European project, leaving the vehicle stuck in a constitutional ditch, opponents of the globalist agenda are now poised for what should be an aggressive and determined attack on the very engine of expansion and integration. For both Americans and Europeans, the enemy is the same. It employs trauma-based economic terrorism under the banner of 'free markets' to demolish the nation state and our God-given rights to liberty and self-determination. It works through price-gouging, tax largesse for corporations that destroy free-enterprise, the wholesale destruction of the middle classes by encouraging the export of quality jobs abroad and the import of cheap labour to displace what few options are left. It is dedicated to the creation of artificial conflicts and trivial distractions to keep people divided and drugged, and it maintains the constant drumbeat of militarism that nuances the dance of death in which the United Nations and the United States are willing partners who fake being out of step. The world has long since surrendered its hope that fearless Americans will rise up by force of arms and reclaim their birthright, retaking their great country from the freedom and wealth-destroying Zionist cabal in Washington. While their children die for Israel and oil in a war to depopulate a broken Arab nation that did them no harm, most Americans are lost in a bizarre fantasy world of asinine government propaganda, junk entertainment and effeminate shopping malls. But though, for now, the issue is a diabolical treaty settled without a whiff of gun-smoke at the ballot box, the French have raised the standard of resistance against a wounded but unrepentant New World Order, and the battle lines are drawn. Europe's parasitic elites in London, Brussels and Strasbourg will neither forgive nor forget; and in the months and years to come, they will not go down without drawing blood. So mark this day and mark it well, for Europe stands before the fire. At long last, the fight-back has begun. _____ Michael James is a British freelance journalist and translator, resident in Germany for almost 13 years. Permission to republish his work in any media is freely granted.

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Wed Jun 08, 2005 4:14 pm
    I am intrigued by what is happening in Europe. The French and Dutch have turned down a constitution and a lot of commentators are spinning it as the beginning of the end for the EU.

    I don’t buy that for a second. They have turned down a bad deal. Something a citizen is supposed to do and we have done now and then.

    The European Union’s success is not in melting everyone into one state, it is in allowing each state to be a state with its own focus, within its own culture with its own collective language and understanding.

    It can only do this within the framework of a working democracy: a democracy that has high voter turn out by strong independent and intelligent voters, something that is not available in the United States.

    John Manley is going to run for the Liberal leadership, he is going to have Frank McKenna, our current ambassador to the states backing him. They are going to talk to us about a union in North America, they are going to be trying to con us into a bad deal.


    ---
    Like a great red wine at the end of a good meal or a Van Morrison song played at just the right time, proof there is a god and every once in a while she smiles.

  2. Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:34 pm
    This article reads like the elders of zion. I am not familiar with Mr. James, but I can only assume that he moved to Germany to be closer to Hitler's center of power. While personally I have a mixed opinions on some of the remafications of the new EU constitution and nationalism. This Internationalist Banker Conspiracy language has been used before by great American 'patriots' like Mr.Ford.
    'Zionist Cabal' give us a break, it's 2005! What's next the Jews killed themselves at German resorts so their grand kids could bankrupt Swiss Banks. And, Slavery was an African cospiracy to get to the New World? Is anyone taking this crap seriously? Please tell me because I can't tell the left from the right anymore!

  3. by avatar Jesse
    Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:52 pm
    'left' and 'right are completely arbitrary designations left over from the layout of the early french assembly building. They can't possibly represent the complexity of politics, today or ever. Everyone should get used to seeing people and politicians based on their views rather than on arbitrary labels.

    ---
    Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

  4. Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:07 pm
    Oh thanks. That's exactly my point...

  5. Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:19 pm
    "Everyone should get used to seeing people and politicians based on their views rather than on arbitrary labels. "

    Or perhaps based on their character. Our politicians provide ample demonstration that their views can be changed given the appropriate motivators.

  6. Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:30 pm
    This was very interesting, we here in Canada make all kinds of assumptions, yet I doubt any people even visiting this site has ever read even the introduction to the european constitution. It's pretty hard to comment on things one knows nothing about. The press may be considered more objective than ours, but again, it is often one sided in such matters.

    One thing that is not talked about is the idea of emotional voting. France and the dutch do not have tons of experience with referenda, one could see this as being a replica of what MAY have been the case in Canada in the 1992 referendum. In other words it could be a case of voting against something simply because the government wants it. I'm not saying that this was always, or even often the case, but nothing can be discounted where people are involved.

    I didn't even understand the comments to the article above, so I won't comment on them, but clearly any time there is a referenda I find it quite exciting. I haven't yet seen the numbers, anybody that's seen a website with a breakdown of the numbers, particularly demographically feel free to post it here.

    Symbolically it is always a joyous thing to see 'the people' vote against the interests of their leaders. I don't think I'm out on a limb in claiming that we know that the effects of globalization have so far only really helped a specific minority. That that one group also has our representatives by the cahonays in an antiquated parliamentary system is evident to me, although others may disagree.

  7. by avatar Jesse
    Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:43 pm
    Also a good point; there's no use in judging a liar based on what he says he supports, or a flip-flopper for what he supports at the moment.

    ---
    Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

  8. Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:07 pm
    Cutting and pasting a comment first made for Robin's article concerning this matter:<br />
    ---------------------------------------<br />
    The following was posted by a U.S. member on a Direct Democracy group thread to which I subscribe. Some European members of the group indicated their agreement with the authors post.<br />
    <br />
    This may be of interest to some :<br />
    <br />
    ____________________________________<br />
    Dear All who are remarking on the EU Referendum and EU Constitution<br />
    <br />
    There seems to be confusion on what is being voted upon. The EU is quite well established and is not likely to be "voted out". It would likely take a massive political uprising to stop the EU from forming. There-fore, you are not voting on whether to have a EU or not, the vote is strictly to accept the EU Constitution as written or not. That said, I believe a European Government is in the best interest of Europeans. To accomplish this without severely disrupting cultural and societal established norms is problematic. It requires that each Nation have definite input and compromise be accomplished which protects the Liberties of Nation states as well as individuals.<br />
    <br />
    The initial forming of the EU was corporate. (1958) The function was trade and economics and included developing an EU bank. Of course this money control also provides control of other things, which could be the dilemma. They who control the money, controls all. This CORPORATE structure has designed this EU Constitution. It is no surprise it favors CORPORATIONS not people.<br />
    <br />
    The Treaty of Rome refers to the treaty which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and was signed by France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg on March 25, 1957. Its original full name was Treaty establishing the European Economic Community -- however the Treaty of Maastricht amended it and among other things removed the word "Economic" from the name of both the community and the treaty. The treaty is therefore now generally called the Treaty establishing the European Community or the EC Treaty. Came into force 1 January 1958.<br />
    <br />
    Reading the EU Constitution soon shows the totally dictatorial and un-democratic structure it envisions.<br />
    <br />
    The President of the European Commission is notionally the highest ranking unelected official within the European Union.<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/president-of-the-european">www.answers.com/topic/president-of-the-european</a>-<br />
    <br />
    Supranationalism is a method of decision-making in international organizations, where power is held by independent appointed officials or by representatives elected by the legislatures or people of the member states. Member-state governments still have power, but they must share this power with other actors. Furthermore, decisions are made by majority votes, hence it is possible for a member-state to be forced by the other member-states to implement a decision against its will.<br />
    <br />
    Of course the people think they have a voice in the EU Parliament. Although attempts were made in the 1980s and 90s to expand its powers, the parliament remains largely a consultative body. In most cases its opinion is not binding; the final vote on legislation proposed by the European Commission , as well as amendments proposed by the parliament, rests with the Council of the European Union . If your "elected" representatives in the EU Parliament have no power, YOU have no power.<br />
    <br />
    Oh, the Council has the power? who are they? It gets real confusing but eventually you can track the power to Corporate heads. Is this who you want to have that kind of power over you?<br />
    <br />
    So the "vote" is truly on acceptance of the EU Constitution, not whether to form an EU or not. In my opinion, the EU Constitution should be shredded and a totally new EU Constitution written with input from the people as is possible now with the Net.<br />
    <br />
    If Europe accepts this EU Constitution, with no basic rights, no divided powers, no ability to directly affect the decisions being made, I believe that Europeans will become slaves to the master.<br />
    <br />
    Article I-46: The principle of participatory democracy<br />
    <br />
    A significant number of citizens, no less than one million, coming from a significant number of Member States may invite the Commission to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing this Constitution. A European law shall determine the provisions regarding the specific procedures and conditions required for such a citizens' request.<br />
    <br />
    Unfortunately many believe Article I-46 provides for I&R. It does not. It makes provision that a law shall be made to determine specific procedures. This "law" will be made by the people that provided the EU Parliament as advisory. The people will not make this law, they will have to follow it.<br />
    <br />
    Right now, provision (law) could be made for the EU Ombudsman to recruit one person from each nation and write provisions for I&R&R which could only be changed by a referendum of all the people of the EU. This "law" would need to be in the "new" EU Constitution. The EU Constitution does allow changes, even though it is being voted upon. (strange)<br />
    <br />
    The US does not need a EU Clone of us, we need a democratic EU which will help us save US.<br />
    <br />
    The present un-democratic EU Constitution must be defeated.<p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />

  9. Wed Jun 08, 2005 9:50 pm
    Most of the French and Dutch people who voted 'no' did so to punish unpopular governments. The Dutch opposition is clamouring for an election, calling on the government to resign in light of the 'No' side's victory. They were also expressing frustration at the econmoic slowdown in Europe, apprehension at the pace of enlargement, and reservations at the possiblity of Turkey joining the Union in only a matter of years. Anyone who says this is the death of Europe is dead wrong. Such opinions are expressed by those who want the Union to fail no matter the cost. I'm sure those in the American government saw this as wet dream come true!

    I would blame neo-Liberalism (the European equivalent of the neo-Conservativism found in North America) for much of the negative aspects of this constitution. Rejecting it off the bat was a smart move on the part of the French and the Dutch. Forcing them to go back to the drawing board while at the same time forcing them to consult the mood and opinion(s) of the public at large is where the process of drawing up a constitution should begin.

    One wonders though at nations such as Latvia whose Parliament overwhelmingly endorsed the constitution. And there are those who say that France and Holland should go ahead with ratifying the treaty regardless of the outcome of the referendums.

    I'd put faith in the Europeans. If anyone could use direct democracy effectively, it's Europe. The electorate of Europe is far more involved and active than their North American cousins (present company excluded of course).

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, Europe is the model for Canadians to look at. I'm not saying all of what they have to offer is worthing taking it upon ourselves to acheive. But looking at their model can help us solve some of our own problems, from the regional divide to the democratic deficit to helth care. Europe may offer the answers. Good post Calumny!

    ---
    "I pick the bones of what's been done. I'm the revolution when the door is shut. I bite the hand that slaps me senseless. I am far too Canadian" -SotW

  10. Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:20 pm
    Presumably you are referring to this:

    "Indeed, mindful of the wrath of the City of London and its insidious international banking operations, already responsible for instigating and financing two world wars to break the spirit of the German people, the federal media shut down all discussion of the constitution's implications for other independent European armies."


    Obviously, this is an oversimplification, as other parties influenced the war, but Hitler did give the finger to private bankers and take back control of money policy nationally.

    Criticizing bankers in no way implicates the majority of the Jewish community.


    ---
    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  11. Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:30 pm
    re: the comment on the author's use of the term Zionist--in this context I think he is referring more to U.S. support for Israel (which is undoubtedly highly controversial) more than any generalized Jewish banker conspiracy (although of course it's hard to tell just from the two references to "Zionism" he uses). See the following: <P> <blockquote>"retaking their great country from the freedom and wealth-destroying Zionist cabal in Washington. While their children die for Israel and oil in a war to depopulate a broken Arab nation that did them no harm, most Americans are lost in a bizarre fantasy world of asinine government propaganda, junk entertainment and effeminate shopping malls."</blockquote> <P> "Weath-destroying" here appears to be specifically in reference to the conflict in the Middle East, and the destruction in Palestine. <P> There are of course many progressives around the world who feel that the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is not being fairly represented; ie Israeli deaths are often reported even when Palestinian deaths are not and it rarely comes out that in fact according to international rights groups more Palestinians have died than Israelis; Palestinians only are painted as terrorists even as Israelis also kill children and unarmed international observers at checkpoints (this is well documented); and not enough opposition is given to continued Israeli expansion into Palestinian lands and the building of an actual wall, a la Berlin, by the Israelis to keep Palestinians out. Many therefore view the U.S. support of Israel (which includes money and weapons) as exacerbating this problem, and/or as support for a colonizing and invading force, and may also view this as a reponse to heavy lobbying on Israel's behalf in Washington. <P> Now, to some such views are simply anti-semitic and supportive of Palestinian "terror". There are many who view the actions of Israel as necessary in order to deal with the "terrorist threat" from the Palestinians. In that case you may still view this author's comments as anti-semitic and odious. <P> But it can also be argued that in fact in this case Israelis are the aggressor and the Palestinians are in fact fighting for their home and lands using the only tactics available to them. There is even a movement of Israeli resisters: Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the occupied territories because they believe Israel's actions there are wrong. So I think it is simplistic to paint references to the Israeli role in that conflict as Hitler-esque. <P> As I said however, it's hard to judge the views of this particular author from the few references included in the article. Meanwhile, I think we can set aside the few more controversial references to the "Zionist" leanings of the U.S., since the bulk of the article is focused on the anti-corporate/anti-globalisation significance of the French and Dutch votes. <p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf<br />

  12. Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:36 am
    You can do business with somebody you trust. You can do business with somebody you don't trust. The only one you can't do business with is the one you aren't sure about.

  13. Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:18 am
    Angus, it's the immigration issue that bothers Europeans the most.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news