The hypocrites! The principle of solidarity is that it is voluntarily. Once it is forced, it amounts to extortion and looses all relationship with solidarity. Yet another word raped by the socialists...

Marcfrans: "2) With regard to selecting immigrants, it should set objective criteria (and practical tests) to discriminate on the basis of behavior/opinions (i.e. culture), not race. Why? Because humans determine (and are morally responsible) for their own behavior, not their 'God-given looks."

I have replied to that a little earlier in the thread. You suffer from a delusion that you are God, granting passports to paradise, when in fact, you are only a brainwashed jackass who watches too much TV. If you were able to think by yourself, you would not imitate your TV set and want third-worlders to replace Europeans.

Armor: On the contrary, the most valid opinion against immigration is that we don't want our descendants to look like Zimbabweans or Moroccans. We have a right to want our descendants to look like ourselves.

"Valid" assumes a value system. Aesthetic considerations should be placed alongside economic, socio-cultural and political ones. However, somehow I would probably no longer be concerned with British domestic politics should the indigenous White Britons be reduced to an insignificant minority. Just because the West is terrified to discuss racial aesthetics does not mean that they do not exist or that non-White peoples are not fully aware of them. Indeed, racial fetishism is flourishing in the West on the part of non-Whites, however, discussion of it is restricted mostly to non-Whites in the blogosphere.

Armor: There is no reason we should reward good third world people with European passports. Refusing them entry to Europe is not a punishment either. They have their own countries, and we have a right to exist.

 
If there is no reason to do a thing, there is no reason not to. If an entity has a right to exist, from where is that right derived? National self-determination is predicated purely upon the ability for nations to enforce their own sovereignty. One country exercising its national self-determination may spell war for another. Western European politicians are enabling the largest conquest in human history to be conducted with only a modicum of violence. Therefore, without appealing to any value systems, Europeans must unite and be prepared to fight for a Europe not that is progressive, is liberal, is democratic, is Christian or is Western, but a Europe that they want.

MarcFrans: It is NOT my opinion "that we can transform people of other races into Europeans by sharing our culture, etc.....".   At least not if you mean by "people" large groups of recent immigrants coming from very different cultures.  This has nothing to do with "race", but everything with "culture".   There is a multitude of OBSERVABLE empirical evidence that many specific INDIVIDUALS can adjust to or adopt and partake in almost any culture that is different from the one in which they were born.

Then if recent migrations to Western Europe were regarded as migrations of individuals as opposed to particular peoples - Muslim, African, Indian - there is no reason that these individuals cannot be integrated according to your logic. Therefore, the fact that immigrant acculturalization is failing is a purely socio-cultural problem which can be solved without sealing Western Europe's borders.

MarcFrans: Your objection to 'sudden' and large-scale immigration from "third world countries", or any other countries for that matter, should be based (formulated) on the basis of 'culture' not of 'race'.

Why? Why is it acceptable to discriminate against culture, and even religion, but not race? It is well within one's rights to reject immigration on aesthetic grounds given that the process of human ancestry has tended to produce ethnicities with specific physical characteristics, and that these assist in determining national membership, with all the rights, freedoms, benefits and obligations that this entails.

MarcFrans: People, both as individuals and as groups, can and should be held responsible for their 'culture' (i.e. behavior patterns and opinions) not for physical features over which they have absolutely no control.

I would counter that as one is predated by their culture, they are not completely "responsible", and generally must either accept or reject it. However, rejecting it to demonstrate some sort of responsibility to liberal democratic norms (do I detect progressiveness here?), which appear neither universal nor objective, usually has negative consequences for the individual in question. Moreover, attempting to alter one's own culture in such a direction can only meet with limited success given that cultures generally evolve gradually and incrementally over long periods of time.

MarcFrans: You may think of yourself as a 'European', but you clearly do not get (understand) the core of neither christianity nor of the (historically European) Enlightenment.

Neither Christianity nor the Enlightenment fully encompass the European or Western intellectual heritage. Moreover, despite the universal cosmopolitanism of Christianity, progressive legislation was enacted mostly before the issue of ethnolysis (destruction of an ethnicity through extinction, annihilation or miscegenation) became a major one.

@ Armor

1) I clearly asked for your views on the 2 hypotheses that I had formulated concerning Quebec, and in response I get more irrelevant nonsense. 

2) If Bretons on the west coast of France no longer have to live in caves, I fail to say why you want eskimos to continue living in igloos!   And, once again, culture does NOT depend "heavily on race".  It depends on a very specific human HISTORY (or actual experiences of many specific individuals in specific geographic places).

3)  As a 'traditional' but post-Enlightenment European, I have no problem with other people having different viewpoints or opinions.  But, I do insist on honesty in any discussion.  So, pleace refrain from misrepresenting my positions.    It is NOT my opinion "that we can transform people of other races into Europeans by sharing our culture, etc.....".   At least not if you mean by "people" large groups of recent immigrants coming from very different cultures.  This has nothing to do with "race", but everything with "culture".   There is a multitude of OBSERVABLE empirical evidence that many specific INDIVIDUALS can adjust to or adopt and partake in almost any culture that is different from the one in which they were born.    

4) Your objection to 'sudden' and large-scale immigration from "third world countries", or any other countries for that matter, should be based (formulated) on the basis of 'culture' not of 'race'.    People, both as individuals and as groups, can and should be held responsible for their 'culture' (i.e. behavior patterns and opinions) not for physical features over which they have absolutely no control.  

You may think of yourself as a 'European', but you clearly do not get (understand) the core of neither christianity nor of the (historically European) Enlightenment.

"It  means  from an Eskimo point of view,Europeans are not people,but more likely a sub-species of penguins..."

And which bird-brain helped you reach that conclusion,or did you arrive there all by yourself? 

Atlantist: "The term Eskimo is considered pejorative in Canada,where the preferred term is Inuit".

and here is the end of the wikipedia sentence: ...where the preferred term is Inuit, which means "people" or "the people"

It means that from an Eskimo point of view, Europeans are not people, but more likely a sub-species of penguins. How arrogant!

Marfcrans: the ability to make the distinction between culture and 'race'.

Let's take the case of the Eskimos. What is left of their culture? Very little. They no longer build good igloos. Nowadays, they probably drink coke. They still have their Eskimo character, the character of their race, but the traditional method of building an igloo, which was a part of Eskimo culture, has not been passed along with Eskimo genes. So, even though culture depends heavily on race, I agree with you that we must make a distinction between culture and race.

As a European, I feel like an Eskimo, since the traditional society that still existed in many parts of Europe a hundred years ago has now largely disappeared. Marcfrans's idea that we can transform people of other races into Europeans by sharing our "culture" with them is absurd, as we no longer have a popular European culture in the first place. (Or maybe Africans can become European (Belgian for example) if they manage to lose any trace of an identity?) It is remarkable that even without a traditional culture, we still feel that we have little in common with third world immigrants. If it isn't cultural awareness that makes us feel we are European, what is it? We just know that we are not the same kind of people (not the same kind of inuit) as they are. I think the emphasis on culture is irrelevant.

PS: do you have any opinion about Barroso and Bilderberg?

"In a similar vain", I think Armor needs to be a tad more selective in the use of language himself.

"The term Eskimo is considered pejorative in Canada,where the preferred term is Inuit".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

Glasshouses and stones readily spring to mind.

@ Armor

Do Bretons feel superior to Eskimos, or is this just an individual 'failure' of yours? 

Flexibility of mind and tolerance, mon cher, is what you need, and - need it be repeated? - the ability to make the distinction between culture and 'race'.     

Nevertheless, I would be more interested to hear your views on the two hypotheses I have presented, rather than further evidence of another apparent prejudice of yours. 

A major difference between Canada and Belgium is that the relatively-small French-speaking MINORITY in Canada has achieved much greater fiscal autonomy (revenue-raising authority) and cultural respect (as measured by 'linguistic equality' in the federal government) than the Dutch-speaking MAJORITY has in Belgium.   The main reason resides in different perceptions of identity.  Whereas most Flemish lefties consider themselves first lefties (naive-lefties in reality) before they are Flemish, most Quebecqers are first culturally 'French' before they are lefties.

In contrast with Bollekeboy, I do not think that Quebec currently is "a socialist basket case", comparable to Wallonia, and I doubt that an independent Quebec Republic would be a "glorious" one.   In a similar vain, Armor may think that an independent Quebec would be "libre".  It surely would be free to retain its language, but it would unlikely retain essential individual freedoms given its naive-left cultural tendencies in recent decades.

I should add that if Flanders were to declare independence, I would run my Flemish Lion up the flagpole and throw a Flemish independence party too.

It appears that the only thing keeping Flanders from becoming an independent republic is a lack of will. Anyone who wants to be independent can be these days. Montenegro recently declared independence after all. Over here in North America we have Quebec as another example of an independence movement that can't seem to close the deal. Of course Quebec remains part of Canada for exactly the opposite reason that Flanders remains in Belgium. Quebec is Canada's Wallonia; a French speaking, socialist basket case subsidized by English speaking Canada. So Quebec stays in Canada because it allows them to continue living in their socialist, welfare state utopia. There is no such advantage to Flanders remaining in Belgium, but I fear they have missed their opportunity. The longer this drags on the less likely independence becomes. As we say over here in America, the Flemish political leaders need to 'man up' and do what the people elected them to do.
AS for the U.K. being forced out of the European Union, that would be the best thing to happen to the British since 1945. I would run my Union flag up the flagpole in my front yard and throw a British independence party. God save the Queen!

"In the event of a Flemish secession, the trade unions will stop paying unemployment and welfare benefits in Flanders, while the Belgian state, controlled by the French-speaking establishment, will stop paying the salaries of the thousands of Flemish civil servants."

This threat can be diffused by having the Flemish government assume the benefits and salaries in question. This will not be a financial problem, given that tax revenues will be flowing to the Flemish government, whose central bank will be issuing legal tender and making a market in Flemish state bills, notes, and bonds. The legislature can later make whatever adjustments in welfare and civil service policy is desirable.

spraynasal: As an educator, I would say...

Unfortunately, this statement cannnot be verified at this time. The difficulty with the anonymity afforded by the Internet is the loss in credibility when referencing personal experiences, etc.

spraynasal: When someone makes the confusion between "accountability" and "despise for the weak", I just have a feeling of revulsion.

There is a distinction between judging people or a particular group of people to be weak and then despising them, and despising weakness in general. When an individual with a rags-to-riches story brags that they never had to accept hand-outs, the corollary of this proud statement is that there must be some shame in being unable to support oneself.

spraynasal: Jesus didn't come to support and reward the strong people, but for the weak and sinners who are lost, so there is a big abyss between social darwinism and christianity...Christians believe that no matter how insignificant you are, you are part of God's plan and have a valuable place in the world.

Which is one of the reasons that religion was labelled the "opiate of the masses". Nevertheless, both liberalism and socialism are heavily indebted to Christianity, and this influence explains their attempts at universal cosmopolitanism and support for human rights.

spraynasal: Social Darminists believe that life is a race where the ultimate law is the survival of the strongest.

Which is the state of affairs in the natural world. Attempts to ameliorate the cruelty that nature can inflict are welcome, however, to base a culture upon a sense of entitlement that contradicts nature is bound to dash many a great expectation. Moreover, life is a race, a race to one's death. Thus, the Neanderthal in Man (and in men for the purposes of this argument), seeks to survive and reproduce the best, which translates roughly into Ferraris, mansions and as many women as possible. For the unfit, religion promises a glorious afterlife which provides some degree of consolation.

It is good to see that the Flemish are getting tired of supporting the minority Walloons. The Walloons are holding the ‘weaker hand’ because they depend on the Flemish to fund their welfare state. The Flemish can continue and allow the government to collapse and then who will fund the Walloons?

Barroso must be nervous thinking this idea might spread to other EU countries.

So Sprayanal (pooh revulsive) tell us:

“When someone makes the confusion between "accountability" and "despise for the weak", I just have a feeling of revulsion”. And then we're entitled about a poor lesson on Christianity.

Well, I didn’t know that confiscating other people’s money obtained in most cases from their hard work in the name of “solidarity”, which, in fact, is a very hypocritical and amoral slogan, was tantamount to “despise for the weak”.

Moreover, nobody referred to “the weak”, but rather to “losers” for whom the Left tends to show compassion in order to better manipulate them.

Moreover, Mr Relativitist Educator, Christianity has everything to do with accountability. 

You have not understood my point at all.

I can only hope, that Flanders finds the strength and willingness to secede from Belgium. Having seen the way Flemmish POLITICIANS were treated in Brussels, (9/11/2007) I hate to think how the rank and file are treated.

"Yves Leterme... knows that he has no choice but to succeed in forming
a government. If he does not, his political career is over."

Let him form a free Flanders government. There's a whole new career for him. 

God Bless Flanders. 

What I can't understand about all this talk of Brussels becoming a European Washington DC is how would such a state be possible.  Where would it get its electricity, water and food from?  It would be totally surrounded by Flanders.  Could Flanders therefore not effectively seal Brussels off?  My understanding is that even Brussels airport is in Flanders so it would not even be necessary to close the airspace of Flanders.

Can you imagine if a free Flanders state was not part of the EU, or even part of say NAFTA how a federal EU capital could exist as an enclave surrounded by a foreign country. It would be like having the headquarters of NATO in West Berlin at the height of the Cold War.

The way I see it is that Flanders holds all the cards and the Belgian and EU elite know it and are therefore trying to frighten the seperatists.

Here is a link to a text by Michael Medved "The Essence of Liberalism ("Leftism" in the US sense): Embracing Life's Losers"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/03/21/the_essence_of_liberalism_embracing_lifes_losers

Here is a quote from this brilliant text:

"Liberals feel an irresistible instinct to take sides with the less fortunate.

While the right wants to reward beneficial choices and discourage destructive directions, the left seeks to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disadvantages that result from bad decisions. In place of the conservative emphasis on accountability, the left proffers a gospel of indiscriminate compassion".

Congratulations, a very accurate analysis.

Regretfully the flemish people are sheep, used to be robbed and eventually slaughtered.

Five remarks:

1) Ubiquitous Stevie "No Wonder" Davignon is a democrat only by name. He would do well in the party of Billary Clinton. 

2) Moreover, what has this "Open Wallet" Soros got to do with Belgian unity?

3) Solidarity is a virtue and a virtue cannot be forced/commanded by institutions, however noble or justified these can be. So-called solidarity is always easy with other people's money.

4) Like unemployment benefits in France, interstate and interregional redistribution should be conditioned and limited in time. The largest contributors should have a say in macro-management of funding.

5) A state's/a region's accountability for the use of funds it receives should get the priority and as such should be the centre of attention.   

Kapitein I totally agree with you.

If the Flemish nation truly wants to exercise national self-determination through a sovereign state, it will have to pay the price, including the temporary cessation of welfare and unemployment payments and civil service salaries to Flemings. Given the Wallonian and pro-Belgian bloc's willingness and ability to override the constitution for its own ends (e.g. BHV constituency, labelling the VB an "enemy of the state"), a declaration of independence accompanied by effective civil disobedience and perhaps even revolutionary violence appears the only course of action. If the Flemings are unwilling or too lazy to fight for their independence, then the Belgian state should soldier on.

So the E.U. should throw Britain out , YES , super , the sooner we are free the better . We will be richer , have more trading partners , have a more liberal society and , best of all , France , Germany and Holland will have to pay a lot more to make up our lost contributions . Flanders , do not be intimidated , if the state do try to deprive you of funds , remember that Flanders surrounds Brussels and if you turn off their power and water see who collapses first .

God bless Flanders . 

"A saying in the US, used when a political party is using naked power to achieve selfish ends comes to mind: "sell stock, buy guns and canned goods"."

Or leave California like I did.  If europeans only knew how fucked up California is.  It is only the extreme talent and entrepreneurialism that keeps the tax revenue ahead of ways Sacremento can find to spend it.

"Yves Leterme... knows that he has no choice but to succeed in forming a government. If he does not, his political career is over."
If he was elected based on a pro-Flemish platform, I wonder why his political career will not end if he caves in to the anti-Flemish and anti-democratic forces?
This article describes very well the measures intended by the "anti's". They are clearly ready and willing to play hardball. One hopes that the Flemish leaders will come up with a plan to counteract the powerplay.
A saying in the US, used when a political party is using naked power to achieve selfish ends comes to mind: "sell stock, buy guns and canned goods". It may or may not be time to act but it is certainly time to get ready.