Monday, 6 October 2008

Welcome, mass murderers!

The conspiracy theory of history has always been an area of keen disagreement (see 9/11 post a few weeks ago). The whole European Project has obviously featured strongly here. To many, there’s a secret cabal planning to create a European super state that will eventually destroy national independence and rule all of us from Brussels like an Evil Empire.

This could well be. But at the heart of the theory lies a paradox. Essentially you can't, it would seem, reconcile an ever-growing Union with deeper levels of integration. It seems self-evident that the bigger it becomes, the harder it is to impose deep centralized control.

Nothing underlines this better than the plan, supported by almost all EU members, to eventually give membership to Turkey. At a stroke this would mean that the Union’s largest member would be made up of 80 million mainly impoverished Muslim peasants. Should it not be evident, to even the dimmest sociology professor, that this would, apart from anything else, render unified and centralized legislative control impossible? As such, does this mean that there is no plan to deepen the Union, and ipso facto, no plan for the Orwellian entity we’ve all worried about?

I ask because Turkey has serious ‘form’.

Quite apart from being Muslim, which will obviously create its own unique set of integration problems, it carries a raft of baggage that make it eminently unsuitable for polite company. And by the way, the supposedly ‘moderate’ Erdogan government recently tried to pass a law criminalising adultery. Imagine how the French would react to that!

For a start it’s aggressively, almost violently nationalistic. It has carried out ethnic cleansing on a massive scale throughout the 20th century, and its treatment of the Kurds and Alevis has been, and continues to be, brutal and discriminatory. And they're totally unapologetic for this. It occupies part of Cyprus, an EU member state, refuses to recognise it, and has shown little interest in leaving.

However, it’s the attitude to the Armenian genocide (representative pictures on the left) that catapults the country, or at least should do so, into pariah status, giventhe approximately 1.5 million deaths involved. This reaction is the polar opposite to that of Germany to the Holocaust. Germany and Germans have been traumatized by this to the extent that denying it happened will land you in jail, they have paid massive reparations to Israel and other victims, the name Hitler has disappeared, while you can't even use the initials AH on your car registration.

The reaction in Turkey couldn’t be more different. First, they deny it even happened and will come down on anyone, in Turkey or abroad, like the proverbial ton of bricks if they broach the subject. Even Western academics have allowed themselves to be shamefully intimidated, succumbing to threats like exclusion and the banning of access to sources and Turkish academic colleagues.

But it gets a lot worse. The organizers and directors of the genocide, some of whom were hanged by the Allies after WW1 for their crimes, are honoured throughout the country to this day. Mass-murderers Enver and Talat (the latter pictured right) have streets, boulevards, schools and even whole districts named after them throughout the country. Even those with a direct hands-on role in the mass murders, here I have in mind the likes of Cemal Azmi in Trabzon and Resit Bey in Diyarbekir, have statues erected in their, er, honour.

This is as if Germany had streets, schools and statues dedicated to Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann. Again, the Turks aren’t in the least bit apologetic about any of this. Assimilate? Don't make me laugh. Earlier this year Erdogan, in a speech in Germany, described assimilation as "a crime against humanity". Well, I suppose we should listen, as such crimes are a Turkish speciality

So how in God’s name can a country like this be even considered for EU membership?

Well, much of it, quelle surprise, comes down to cynical politics. The US, and its British lapdog, see Turkey both as a strong counter to the Russian 'threat' (I'm quaking in my boots) and as a friend of Israel. The latter, of course, will trump anything else in American politics. Now you’d think that the Israelis, and Jews in general, would be reluctant supporters of genocide enthusiasts. But needs must. Israel is short of friends and have developed a good modus vivendi with the Turks. Well, at least for now. Then again the Jews have cornered the genocide market and presumably don't want others diluting its impact.

Anyway, to go back to the beginning, given what we know, why are the EU’s leaders pushing for Turkish entry? The must know that it will destroy whatever chance they have of a unitary state, as well as impoverish the rest of the EU.

Any ideas?


Anonymous said...

The Turks didnt set out to exterminate the Armenians. The armenians were supporting the Russians and they were deported. A lot died on the way. said...

Perhaps I am confused, isn't the United Kingdom already a member of the E.U.? If one googles "the mass graves of Ireland" one finds a map of the results of the British decisions to eliminate the Catholic Celtic troublemakers.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't your paradox become somewhat diluted by the mere fact that the EU is seriously considering the inclusion of Turkey, thereby proving that such an oil and water mix will be forced down the throats of EU citizens whether it is considered logical or not.
Alluding even more then, to the idea of some sort of Orwellian mentality, rather than cabal, determined to force things to be the way it is pre-destined, regardless of any objection, no matter how justified or sensible.
Just a thought...

Rhein said...

Hard to say why. It's pretty clear that the destruction of our culture, race and way of life is one of the reasons. Perhaps they also want to push people toward a civil war so they can tighten the vise even more and implement some kind of martial law.

One thing i'm sure of is they know what they're doing. I refuse to believe they're so stupid as to not see what's going on and the consequences their actions will have.

Half of the people running the show aren't white so they couldn't care less about us and the other half are traitors who only see the population as consummers or potential voters, and only care about money and their own careers. They feel no kinship toward their own and whether the people buying their garbage or voting for them are white or black it makes no difference to them.

Chello said...

I believe it is accepted that Turkish accession would banjax plans for deeper integration. I believe that support though is actually coming from two contradictory sides. One is the ultra-liberal EU political elite who view extension of EU hegemony as an unarguably good thing. Denying Turkey could be a part of the deal undermines their world view that no country could possibly fail to benefit from the benign 'multicultural' presence of the EU. If you admit Turkey won't fit, then that poses uncomfortable questions about integration of non-western, non-Judaeo-Christian immigrants. And you cannot, under any circumstances mention the unmentionable.

Counter intuitively, the other side want Turkish accession for precisely the opposite reason. Note that Turkish Accession’s greatest cheerleaders are also two entities that ultimately do not want to Europe united; The UK and the USA.

The USA has repeatedly put its nose in over Turkish accession. It is not in US interests to see the EU emerge as a counterweight to the USA. And as for the UK, they simply cannot see themselves as being in the same boat as the EU the way Ireland or lots of continental countries do. It’s also worth mentioning that UK bends over backward for the US.

I am a fan of the EU, but despair sometimes over the lack of will to even admit that immigration is transforming Europe.

I am also a big fan of the United States, but naturally, their interests are different to our own.

I wrote to a government minister a while back about Turkey and asked why they (us) were officially in favour of their accession. He simply replied that it was policy.

I noted at the time that should Turkey join, illiterate Muslims (based on Turkish population and literacy stats) would outnumber Irish citizens in the union.

I don't want that.

Anonymous said...

chelle said "I noted at the time that should Turkey join, illiterate Muslims (based on Turkish population and literacy stats) would outnumber Irish citizens in the union."

Chello - they'd outnumber us all right, by 20 to 1 !!!!

Anonymous said...

Teacher paris. come on. the brit's didn't set out to eliminate the irish. to the extent that it happened, it was all 400 yeara ago.

the turks did their handiwork less than a century ago, and, unlike the brits, they have neither acknowledged nor apologised for it.

true brit

SAVANT said...

Don't agree with rhein. Based on what we see with the current financial crisis, these people couldn't plan a christams party.

Rhein said...

How do you know that wasn't planned? They've create an atmosphere of panic almost worldwide, they've 'bailed' or bought/nationalised quite a lot of properties that went practically bankrupt thus growing even more powerful and best of all it's the population that's going to end up paying the bill...

I'd say it serves their interests quite well. And keep in mind countless people, financial analysts and others, had repeadetly warned them about what was going to happen but they kept ignoring them. Same thing they're doing now about immigration. Again, i have trouble believing they're that clueless. Not the ones at the top at least.

Anonymous said...

If the Turks are let in any prtence of a 'Europe' will be gone forever. said...

Nassau Senior, expressed his fear that existing policies "will not kill more than one million Irish in 1848 and that will scarcely be enough to do much good."

The Great Hunger; by Cecil Woodham-Smith; p. 373 (cap. xvii; sect. 3; pp. 1; penult. sentence).

Nassau William Senior (September 26, 1790 - June 4, 1864), English economist, was born at Compton, Berkshire, the eldest son of the Rev. JR Senior, vicar of Durnford, Wiltshire.

SAVANT said...

Ok teacher paris. maybe I have to back off a bit on this. I wonder though how representative Nassau was? Dont forget that the Brits also organised a lot of welfare for the Irish. said...

Dear Savant,

My eldest sister's husband (100% Irish) acquired several medals and three bullet wounds while in the American Army killing his wife's (50% Irish)German relatives the in Second War to Destroy Germany.

It took me 60 years to get an accurate tally of the Irish starved by Britain.

From Cork harbor on one day in 1847 the AJAX steamed for England with 1,514 firkins of butter, 102 casks of pork, 44 hogsheads of whiskey, 844 sacks of oats, 247 sacks of wheat, 106 bales of bacon, 13 casks of hams, 145 casks of porter, 12 sacks of fodder, 28 bales of feathers, 8 sacks of lard, 296 boxes of eggs, 30 head of cattle, 90 pigs, 220 lambs, 34 calves and 69 miscellaneous packages. On November 14, 1848 , sailed, from Cork harbor alone: 147 bales of bacon, 120 casks and 135 barrels of pork, 5 casks of hams, 149 casks of miscellaneous provisions (foodstuff); 1,996 sacks & 950 barrels of oats; 300 bags of flour; 300 head of cattle; 239 sheep; 9,398 firkins of butter; 542 boxes of eggs.

From 1845 through 1850, 6,257,456 "disappeared," the number murdered is approximately 1.1 million fewer; i.e., 5.16 millions. Consequently; if Britain's census figures for Ireland are correct the British government murdered approximately 5.16 million Irish men, women and children.

It is my impression the today's Irishmen avoid being informed about this.

That fine Protestant Irishman Shaw refused to use the word "famine"; he always said "the starvation."

He knew whereof he spoke.

Joe O'Neill said...

This is all getting a little heated, I would like to make a few points:-
1) To blame any living Englishman for crimes against the Irish nation 150 years ago is nonsense.
2) Britain has given twice as many jobs and homes to the Irish since WW2 than ever settled in Ireland since Cromwell.
3) Fuck the Turks.
4) Who ,what or where is Armenia ?
5) Who cares ?

Anonymous said...

Joe O'Neill - it is important. It means Europe will be fucked in double quick time if these genicidal bastards get into the EU.

Ronnie D.

Anonymous said...

I cant believe anyone hasnt heard of the Armenian massacre - the 2nd worst of the 20th century. For shame!

Zngr said...

In Scandinavia, or rather among any liberals anywhere, a popular method of "refuting" criticism targeted at any number of third world cultures or shitholes (say, Turkey) in regards of how they stand comparison to the Western world, is to point out that Western country X has done Y. Often one or two centuries ago.

Hence we have no "right" to say modern Turkey is a fucking shithole with little regard for human rights to boot.

What the hell? A simpleton, or a child should see the problems of logic behind this type of argument. If your neighbor runs to you saying, "your roof is on fire, your roof is on fire!" by the logic employed, a valid answer, explanation and solution, to the issue of the flaming roof would be to smugly answer "nevermind, friend, so is the equipment shed. And it's not even my shed. And it burned last week" and leave the roof aflame.

And one wrong does not justify another in any case, especially if the wrong happened when nobody who walks the earth today is alive and of those who are everyone singularly condemns whatever did happen.

We are not engaged in a competition of who has the purest history or race lineage or heritage. We are trying to shove different cultures and worlds together in a globe that is getting smaller and smaller, and if history makes us understand what brings us to this day, it is not a simple reflection of how we ARE this day, now.

Anonymous said...

zngr is right. and another thing, a lot of the reason the 'west' did bad things was that we were well organised and powerful enough. does anyone think that if various backward countries/races ahd our capabilities they'd have behaved better?