IT CAN’T HAVE escaped the intelligent observer that the left — and what we can call the Establishment in general — is more than indulgent towards Islam. It is truly, madly, deeply, pathologically besotted with it.
Whether it’s Merkel opening her country up to a million immigrants or the other leaders of the West dribbling inanities about Islam being a religion of peace or the police and other authorities ignoring the systematic sexual abuse of thousands of girls by Muslim gangs, etc., to the immediate response of the media to every terrorist atrocity with blatherings about solidarity, unity and a condemnation of the threat from a phantom right-wing, the message is clear: Islam is a marvellous, wonderful, humanity-enriching culture that cannot be held responsible for the actions of those who act in its name, and those of us who aren’t Muslims (affectionately known as kuffars) must prostrate ourselves in admiration and submission to its every wish.
The muckety-mucks are nothing if not interfering prodnoses (that’s one I forgot). When they’re not busy trying to destroy cultures and economies they like nothing better than calling people fascists for what they eat and drink. Now they’ve moved on to identifying them by their haircut. They’ve even named a hair style for them, the “Fashy”. That’s to the point and easy to remember.
EVEN WHEN IT IS making one of its generally excellent documentaries on art or history the BBC these days cannot help but have its presenters slip in a bit of propaganda promoting multiculturalism, diversity or mass immigration. In the first episode of a recent series, Art of France, Andrew Graham-Dixon took us through Seine-Saint-Denis, a northern suburb of Paris, to view the “truly varied faces of this modern nation”, ie, the mainly Muslim faces of North Africa. France, he later said, has always been “a nation of mongrels,” which is just a version of the “nation of immigrants” mantra repeated by those who usually don’t live in areas populated by immigrants but are happy for others to do so.
AFTER CAMERON’S SWIFT self-defenestration from the job of Prime Minister and politics in general, Theresa May found herself Britain’s new leader. A remainer, and therefore typical of the majority of Conservative MPs, she has had to work out how to handle the referendum result. Should she soft soap the electorate into accepting a pretend exit from the European Union by means of delay and prevarication? Or should she bury her Europhile tendencies and do her best to deliver full exit as the British people asked?
A timely example of the Monnet method, ie, engrenage, as mentioned in previous post:
Improving the management of the EU’s external border is no longer just an aim, it is an emergency, according to an EESC opinion adopted today. But this should not be done at the detriment of fundamental human rights, notably the right to asylum and the right to free movement in the EU….
The Border Guard must be akin to a civilian police force, not a military force, adds the EESC in its opinion. The European Border Guard should be well trained and organised in order to fulfil its key missions: to rescue people and provide adequate care in respect of fundamental human rights and of the principle of “non-refoulement”.
Thus emerged[…]that strategy which came to be known as engrenage or ‘the Monnet method’.
There would never be any single, clear definition of these terms. But every ‘project’ insider would know what was meant be engrenage, or ‘gearing’. It provided a blanket word to describe all those various techniques whereby the ‘project’ could advance what was really its only underlying agenda: a steady, relentless pressure to extend the Commission’s supranational powers. Each new advance it made would merely be regarded as a means of gearing up for the next action. Each new addition to its competencies might begin with a small , innocuous-seeming proposal to which nobody could object: until the principle was conceded and those powers could then be steadily enlarged. Each new problem or setback could be used as a ‘beneficial crisis’ to justify further extending the Commission’s powers to provide the remedy.
Thus, brick by brick, would the great supranational structure be assembled. Above all it would be vital never to define too clearly what was the ‘project’s’ ultimate goal, for fear this would arouse the countervailing forces which might seek to sabotage it before it was complete.
In this sense, an intention to obscure and to deceive was implicit in the nature of the ‘project’ from the moment it was launched. This habit of concealment was to remain such a defining characteristic of the ‘project’ that it would come increasingly to affect all those caught in its spell.
Source: The Great Deception, by Christopher Booker and Richard North, p.583.