Brussels

Dozens of killed in multiple terrorist bombings in Brussels. Under the very nose of the EU headquarters.

The common response of European politicians has been that they are "united", in "solidarity" with Belgium, and "defending the values of democracy and freedom".

Think about it. What does "united" mean here? Who is united, and for what purpose? What about this solidarity? And what does democracy and freedom have to do with Muslim terrorism?

Was there a danger of European nations not being united and in solidarity with each other? How would it look like if they weren't? Could, Italy, say, or Poland, claim solidarity with the terrorists and say Belgium deserve it? That they're happy Brussels got bombed? That's absurd. It's just not in the realm of possibility. European nations of course dislike Muslim terrorism and everybody feels sympathy with Belgians.

The only way that those statements by European politicians is to understand them in political partisan terms. European politicians aren't speaking for their countries. They are speaking for themselves, and their parties. "United" means that they, as politicians, stay united with their friends in Brussels, their fellow politicians and bureaucrats. They stand united with their friends against their enemies, the far-right. "Solidarity" means they feel bad about their fellow Belgian politicians, and will keep on fighting the far-right so that the far-right can't take advantage of their reasonable proposals against immigration and take power from their Belgian bureaucrat friends. "Defending our values of democracy and freedom" is not meant in contrast with Muslim terrorists, it is meant in contrast to the far right, who don't share "our" (i.e. the EU elite's) values.

So what is happening right now is that Muslims have killed dozens of people in Brussels, and politicians across the country are going on TV and print media to declare that whatever happens they will never agree with the far-right, and keep on enforcing the present leftist consensus. They came out to proclaim that they have no interest in solving the issue and prevent more terrorism; they have an interest in staying in power and keep the opposition, their competitors, out of power. The Muslims are not a threat to the EU. They can put a bomb now and then, kill more or less commoners, but they don't have the capability of threatening the EU institutions, or any individual country.

The far-right, though, is a real and growing threat to the EU. They are aiming for the throat. A EU politician interested in keeping his job has a much bigger incentive for cracking down on the far-right, than he has for cracking down on Muslim terrorists. That's why politicians across the EU now are "united in solidarity with our Belgian friends". That's not a figure of speech. They mean it literally. They are united in solidarity with their actual pals in Brussels, and will keep supporting their policies against the proposals of the far-right, whatever the actual results of those policies. Even if the present policies enable more terrorism. And obviously bringing 1 million Muslim immigrants per year doesn't help.

That's what it all means.

See more here:

2016/02/07/power/

2015/11/16/its-your-fault-for-resisting/

2015/11/15/paris/

2016/02/06/means-goals-and-signaling/

[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]

>The far-right, though, is a real and growing threat to the EU. They are aiming for the throat. The far-right may well be a threat to the EU, and they may well get themselves into positions of political power in the coming years. Yet, what are they actually going to do to solve the problems that Europe is today facing? It was always clear to me that the stupidity of the policies of the EU would eventually result in the rise of the far-right, but it was also always clear to me that the far-right, once in power, would behave at least as irresponsibly, if not even more so, than the people from whom they took power. Most--and I say 'most' because there might be an exception that I'm not aware of, but I doubt it--of these far-right parties are currently running on a platform of direct democracy, an even more generous welfare state, "environmentalism", feminism, etc.. From the appearances, they're basically hippies, except racist, rather than real politicians with a real and sensible plan for the future. At any rate, if they fuck up this current opportunity that's been placed within their grasp, they likely won't get another chance, so I really hope they don't fuck things up, at least not too badly. As for the terrorist attack in Brussels, it's certainly sad that it happened, but it was predictable.

As usual, the Left hopes to conceal actual problems so that their real goal -- continued Leftist domination -- can proceed apace. The voters listen, then zone out and realize familiar noises are being made, so reach for another pizza roll.

"familiar noises are being made" At this point the familiarity may be breeding a very, very, very salutary contempt. Especially now that the time between signals is getting less and less.

In a competitive environment, holders will be good at their jobs. Keeping power is always competitive. Power-holders are afraid of the far-right, but not afraid of Muslim terrorists. Terrorism being scary is going on my list of myths that even dissidents believe.

They've just walked too far out on a limb. At this point, they are so invested in the narrative, that to say "we need to get these people out of our countries and keep them out" is tantamount to saying "everything that got me to this point where I can make these decisions was a lie." Well, if that's the case, why are you qualified to be there? Goodbye, power. Goodbye, influence. Goodbye, salary. These guys are riding the tiger, and saying the obvious ("if you don't want Muslim terror, get rid of your Muslims") means falling off.

Yes, pretty much what I've been saying. And what Houellebecq thought would end up with conversion to Islam. It'll probably take a bit longer though.

[…] zone’ isn’t working. More to come (!, !!). Tintin, shitlord. Spandrell’s take. Meanwhile, elsewhere. Death of the spider people. The French model. Orban speaks. Japan dips a toe […]

[…] shows how standing United with Brussels is partisans’ way of saying they stand united against those icky Europeans who don’t […]

The permanent bureaucracy has nothing to fear form the rise of the European right, and if they think they do and act on this belief as you detail here then, boy are they stupid. Does anyone think that Le Pen will dismantle the eurocracy? Ha! She'll just repurpose it for her own goals and all these guys will carry on just as merrily. There seems to be no way to run a modern if not under a de facto bureaucratic system, so such fears are silly.

Surely there's many pork barrel conspiracies which would get disrupted and that's a lot of money that they'd rather not lose.

On such terms, than sure. But notice that this is a much, much weaker issue than "the whole system will collapse into a black hole if we admit you may have been right". Time will favor the right.

There is a difference between EU officials and national officials. Someone like Le Pen cannot change the eurocracy against europhil governments of other states. The only thing she (or someone like her) can do is leave. Leave hurts the EU bureaucracy because it will shrink somewhat, but that's far from dismantling it. The national bureaucracies have nothing to fear from the alt right, because, as Etjon points out, they are needed.

Its even less alarming than that. Le Pen won't leave the EU and will work to turning it into her own vision of the French Interests (easy to see what such a vision would be). The eurocracy is such a powerful tool that she'd be mad not to use it. So, even the eurocracy has nothing to fear from the european right. They really can win electorally and proceed to gradually put their vision to the test. I suppose we shall see.

Mid and low level bureaucrats may be repurposed in an alright regime, but the elite, bureaucratic and not bureaucratic will have to go and lose all their precious rents. Its them who are howling. Their system will collapse, and they won't go out without a fight.

Why is Britain leaving then?

Fair point and I always thought that they'd be the first and the very last to leave. I don't have much to contribute there, besides making the commonplace comment that they always tended to be askew of the EU project.

Well I'm far from an expert but I don't see how France could repurpose the EU to suit its needs and have Germany agree to it, so leaving might not be a bad idea for France after all. Le Pen is after all allowed in polite society in France, some part of the elite thinks her message is worth listening to.

On the contrary, I'd say (speculate, rather) that France has the best shot of any country to impose itself on the EU, in time of course. They are a centralized nation with weak secessionist movements and identities, which is far, far more than can be said for any other large European country. They have nukes, a proper expeditionary army, agricultural and energy self-sufficiency (while the Gerries went on to close their reactors). What they could go for is to get back on their feet economically, keep a tight grip on the minorities and just fund secessionists movements in the EU (being careful of the order though, you don't want to be left alone with Germany in a seas of smaller countries). In time, the EU will be composed of a hundred smallish countries and big France. Ta-da, done. So, given how they have a chance, they will go for it, Le Pen above all. It was De Geulle, after all, who supported the EU with no reservations.

Those guys are few and will not live (or work) forever. By the time the last of them retires, the lower rungs could have turned already. It may be as simple as waiting it out (contingent on electoral victory, of course).