del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
by Srdja Trifkovic
Two weeks ago the first “gay pride parade” was staged in Belgrade. Serbia’s “pro-European” government had been promoting the event as yet another proof that Serbia is fit to join the European Union, that is has overcome the legacy of its dark, intolerant past. Thousands of policemen in full riot gear had to divide their time between protecting a few hundred “LBGT” activists (about half of them imported from Western Europe for the occasion) and battling ten times as many young protesters in the side streets.
The parade, it should be noted, was prominently attended by the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade Mary Warlick, by the head of the European Commission Office, Vincent Degert of France, and by the head of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission in Serbia, Dimitris Kipreos. Needless to say, none of them had attended the enthronment of the new Serbian Patriarch a week earlier. Two days later, Hillary Clinton came to Belgrade and praised the Tadic regime for staging the parade.
Mrs. Clinton et al are enjoying the fruits of one man’s two decades of hard work in Eastern Europe. George Soros can claim, more than any other individual, that his endeavors have helped turn the lands of “Real Socialism” in central and eastern Europe away from their ancestors, their cultural and spiritual roots. The process is far from over, but his Open Society Institute and its extensive network of subsidiaries east of the Trieste-Stettin line have successfully legitimized the notions that only two decades ago would have seemed bizarre, laughable or demonic to the denizens of the eastern half of Europe.
The package was first tested here in America. Through his Open Society Institute and its vast network of affiliates Soros has provided extensive financial and lobbying support here for
- Legalization of hard drugs: We should accept that “substance abuse is endemic in most societies,” he says. Thanks to his intervention the terms “medicalization” and “non-violent drug offender” have entered public discourse, and pro-drug legalization laws were passed in California and Arizona in the 90s.
- Euthanasia: In 1994 Soros—a self-professed atheist—launched his Project Death in America (PDIA) and provided $15 million in its initial funding. (It is noteworthy that his mother, a member of the pro-suicide Hemlock Society, killed herself, and that Soros mentions unsympathetically his dying father’s clinging on to life for too long.) PDIA supports physician-assisted suicide and works “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals” and, in a turn of phrase chillingly worthy of Orwell, lead to “the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.”
- Population replacement: Soros is an enthusiastic promoter of open immigration and amnesty & special rights for immigrants. He has supported the National Council of La Raza, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Forum, and dozens of others. He also promotes expansion of public welfare, and in late 1996 he created the Emma Lazarus Fund that has given millions in grants to nonprofit legal services groups that undermine provisions of the welfare legislation ending immigrant entitlements.
Soros supports programs and organizations that further abortion rights and increased access to birth control devices; advocate ever more stringent gun control; and demand abolition of the death penalty. He supports radical feminists and “gay” activists, same-sex “marriage” naturally included. OSI states innocently enough that its objectives include “the strengthening of civil society; economic reform; education at all levels; human rights; legal reform and public administration; public health; and arts and culture,” but the way it goes about these tasks is not “philanthropy” but political activism in pursuit of all the familiar causes of the radical left—and some additional, distinctly creepy ones such as “Death in America.”
Soros’s “philanthropic” activities in America have been applied on a far grander scale abroad. His many foundations say that they are “dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society.” What this means in practice? Regarding “Women’s Health” programs in Central and South-Eastern Europe, one will look in vain for breast cancer detection programs, or for prenatal or post-natal care. No, Soros’s main goal is “to improve the quality of abortion services.” Accordingly his Public Health Program has focused on the introduction of easily available abortion all over the region, and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. Why is Soros so keen to promote more abortions? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: the region is experiencing a huge demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortions cannot be the answer either: only five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000: the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Romania and Ukraine. The only answer is that Soros wants as few little European Orthodox Christians born into this world as possible.
Soros’s Public Health Programs additionally “support initiatives focusing on the specific health needs of several marginalized communities,” such as “gays” and AIDS sufferers, and promote “harm reduction” focusing on needle/syringe exchange and supply of methadone to adicts. His outfits lobby governments to scrap “repressive drug policies.” Over the past decade and a half the Soros network has given a kick-start to previously non-existent “gay” activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for “LGBT Rights” is directed from Budapest, publishing lesbian and gay books in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia, opening Gay and Lesbian Centers in Ukraine and Rumania. Its activists routinely attack the Orthodox Church as a key culprit for alleged discrimination of “LGBTs.”
Education is a key pillar of Soros’s activities. His Leitmotif is the dictum that “no-one has a monopoly on the truth” and that “civic education” should replace the old “authoritarian” model. Even under communism Eastern Europe has preserved very high educational standards, but the Soros Foundation seeks to replace the old system with the concept of schools as “exercise grounds” for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus overcoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the oppressive legacy of patriarchal past.” The purpose of education is not “acquisition of knowledge”: the teacher is to become the class “designer” and his relationship with students based on “partnership.” Soros’s reformers also insist on an active role of schools in countering the allegedly unhealthy influence of the family on students, which “still carries an imprint of nationalist, sexist, racist, and homophobic prejudices rampant in the society at large.”
“Racism” is Soros’s regular obsession, but he had a problem finding it in racially non-diverse East European countries. This has been resolved by identifying a designated victim group—gypsies (“Roma”). His protégés now come up with policy demands to “protect” this group that could have been written by Rev. Jesse Jackson:
- anti-bias training of teachers and administrators;
- integration of Romani history and culture in the textbooks at all levels;
- legally mandated arffirmative action programs for Roma;
- tax incentives for employers who employ them;
- access to low-interest credit for Roma small family businesses;
- setting aside a percentage of public tenders for Roma firms;
- legislation to fight “racism and discrimination” in housing;
- adoption of “comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation”;
- creation of mechanisms “to monitor implementation of anti-discrimination legislation and assist victims of racial discrimination in seeking remedies”;
- recognition by governments of “the Roma slavery and the Holocaust through public apology along with urgent adoption of a package of reparatory measures.”
A budding race relations industry is already in place, with the self-serving agenda of finding “discrimination” in order to keep itself in place for ever.
To make his agenda appear “normal” to the targeted population, millions of East Europeans are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by “the Soros media”—the term is by now well established in over a dozen languages—such as the B-92 media conglomerate in Serbia.
The social dynamics Soros uses to penetrate the target countries is interesting. To thousands of young East Europeans to become a “Soroshite” represents today what joining the Party represented to their parents: an alluring opportunity to have a reasonably paid job, to belong to a privileged elite, for many to travel abroad. The few chosen for the future new Nomenklatura go to Soros’s own Central European University in Budapest. In all post-communist countries Soros relies overwhelmingly on the sons and daughters of the old Communist establishment who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic vestiges of their native soil, culture and tradition. The comparison with the janissary corps of the Ottoman Army is more apt than that with the Communist Party. The new janissaries, just like the old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the Master himself.
The key ideological foundation for Soros’s beliefs is the same: that all countries are basically social arrangements, artificial, temporary and potentially dangerous. A plethora of quotes from his writings will make it clear that he thinks that owing allegiance to any of them is inherently irrational, and attaching one’s personal loyalty to it is absurd. Like Marx’s proletarian, Soros knows of no loyalty to a concrete country. He could serve any—or indeed all—of them, if they can be turned into the tools of his Wille zur Macht. In 1792, it could have been France, in 1917 Russia. Today, the United States is his host organism of choice because it is so powerful, and its media scene is open to penetration by his rabidly anti-traditionalist and deeply anti-American worldview and political agenda.
Textbooks and educational curricular reforms pushed by Soros in Eastern Europe indicate that he is trying to perform crude dumbing down of the young. Within months of coming to power in October 2000 the “reformists” within Serbia and their foreign sponsors insisted that schools—all schools, from kindergarden to universities—must be reformed and turned from “authoritarian” institutions into poligons for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus overcoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the opressive legacy of patriarchal past.” They started with primary schools, with a pilot program of “educational workshops” for 7-12 year olds. The accompanying manual, sponsored by UNICEF and financed by the Open Society, denigrades the view that the purpose of education is acquisition of knowledge and insists that the teacher has to become the class “designer” and his relationship with students based on “partnership.”
The reformers devote particular attention to the more active role of schools in countering the allegedly unhealthy influence of the family on students, which “still carries an imprint of nationalist, sexist, [anti-Roma] racist, and homophobic prejudices rampant in the society at large.” The time-honored Balkan tradition of slapping childrens’ bottoms when they exceed limits is now presented in the elementary classroom as a form of criminal abuse that should be reported and acted upon. Traditional gender roles are relativized by “special projects” that entail cross-dressing and temporary adoption of opposite gender names.
Soros’s vision is hostile even to the most benign understanding of national or ethnic coherence. His core belief—that traditional morality, faith, and community based on shared memories are all verboten—is at odds even with the classical “open society” liberalism of Popper and Hayek, by whom he swears. His hatred of religion is the key. He promotes an education system that will neutralize any lingering spiritual yearnings of the young, and promote the loss of a sense of place and history already experienced by millions of Westerners, whether they are aware of that loss or not. Estranged from their parents, ignorant of their culture, ashamed of their history, millions of Westerners are already on the path of alienation that demands every imaginable form of self-indulgence, or else leads to drugs, or suicide, or conversion to Islam or some other cult.
To understand Soros it is necessary to understand globalization as a revolutionary, radical project. In the triumph of liberal capitalism, the enemies of civilization such as Soros have found the seeds of future victory for their paradigm that seeks to eradicate all traditional structures capable of resistance. The revolutionary character of the Open Society project is revealed in its relentless adherence to the mantra of Race, Gender and Sexuality. His goal is a new global imperium based that will be truly totalitarian. But he is making a colossal miscalculation. He does not realize that the unassimilated and unassimilable multitudes do not want to be the tools of his will to power. Illegal aliens in America, Algerians in France, Turks in Germany and Pakistanis in Britain have their own, instinctive scenario, and it does not entail leaving Soros and his ilk in positions of power, or alive.
About the Author
Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, an expert on foreign affairs, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad. His latest book is The Krajina Chronicle: A History of the Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia.
The 
Les quartiers sensibles se définissent ainsi comme des territoires désertés par les classes moyennes. L’image de ces « no-middle-class-land » s’est construite en creux, en comparaison d’une classe moyenne majoritaire et intégrée vivant sur d’autres territoires, notamment périurbains.
Le « paysage médiatique » est devenu le « paysage social de référence » et le reflet de l’idéologie des élites. L’analyse de la genèse de cette représentation permet d’éclairer cette dimension idéologique.
Cette affirmation ne correspond pas à la réalité. Si la permanence des difficultés sociales révèle une forme d’impuissance des pouvoirs publics, elle ne signifie pas pour autant que l’État s’est désengagé. D’ailleurs, ces territoires bénéficient le plus souvent d’une densité d’équipements publics supérieure à celle des territoires périurbains et ruraux.
Ex: 
Le gouvernement de droite, actuellement en selle aux Pays-Bas, avec l’appui de Geert Wilders, a très clairement provoqué une mutation de fond dans la politique européenne. Même en Allemagne, où, généralement, les réactions face à tout « extrémisme de droite », réel ou imaginaire, sont plus peureuses et hystériques que partout ailleurs dans le monde, pour des raisons historiques évidentes. Or il semble que désormais ce tabou-là, lui aussi, soit mis au rencart. D’abord, avant l’accession de Wilders au gouvernement néerlandais, nous avons eu l’affaire déclenchée par le social-démocrate Sarrazin qui a profondément ébranlé le monde politique allemand. Immédiatement dans la foulée du tollé soulevé par le livre de Thilo Sarrazin, la CSU bavaroise est entrée dans le jeu : elle s’est mise à critiquer la politique allemande de l’immigration, menée jusqu’ici. Et voilà maintenant que la Chancelière Angela Merkel s’y met à son tour en déclarant publiquement que la société multiculturelle, que l’on avait envisagée pour le futur de l’Allemagne, s’est soldée par un échec. Elle a déclaré cette vérité en termes clairs lors d’un rassemblement des jeunes de son parti, la CDU démocrate-chrétienne à Potsdam. 
alliés soit aux libéraux (qui ont plus d’une fois adopté la tactique de la girouette), soit à « Die Linke », la formation socialo-communiste de Lafontaine et de Gysi, soit aux Verts. Ce serait alors l’instabilité durable, due aux blocages de coalitions trop hétérogènes. L’Allemagne deviendrait aussi ingouvernable que la Belgique : impossible d’envisager cette perspective car les défis sont trop importants à l’heure actuelle. On ne va pas sacrifier la boutique pour quelques centaines de milliers d’immigrés considérés, à tort ou à raison, comme non intégrés, non intégrables et improductifs, selon les thèses du socialiste Sarrazin.
multiculturelle, on a vu intervenir une mégère qui a empêché toutes ses coreligionnaires de croquer à belles dents cette sympathique spécialité du Brabant wallon. Et voilà qu’est décrétée « haram » (et non « halal ») la tarte au sucre de Chaumont-Gistoux ! Le même ostracisme est appliqué au cramique (pain au beurre et aux raisins, pour nos amis hexagonaux) : nos pensionnés qui vivent dans certains quartiers en sont définitivement privés ! Et si un militant wallon refusait de déguster un biscuit marocain, gentiment offert, sous prétexte qu’il n’est pas fait avec du bon beurre, donc fade, insipide et immangeable ? Commettrait-il un acte « raciste », donc délictueux, en refusant la convivialité ambiante ? Les enfants et les jeunes adorent les bonbons : rien de nouveau sous le soleil. La Belgique, nous disaient maints Français qui, enfants, avaient séjourné à Bruxelles dans les années 50 et 60, était le paradis des amateurs de bonbons : petites barres sûres acidulées car toutes trempées d’acide citrique, lards en guimauve, lacets en réglisse, et j’en passe. Tout cela est encore disponible. Et les jeunes issus de l’immigration en raffolent. Or voilà que certains fondamentalistes viennent leur dire que ce n’est pas « halal », que cela contient des résidus de porc, de « halouf ». Finis les bonbons. Et les enfants non musulmans de le répéter pour ne pas partager le paquet de « nounours qui piquent » avec leurs condisciples musulmans. Où va la convivialité souhaitée par tous ? Vous voulez offrir un bonbon à un sympathique petit galopin venu d’Afrique du Nord et vous risquez de vous faire lapider par un illuminé ou de subir les foudres de la justice inspirée par la Loi Moureaux, si vous lui répondez de travers ou si vous lui collez une claque parce qu’il vous a adressé l’une de ses sympathiques injures, devenues courantes à Bruxelles comme « fils de p. » ou « enc.. de ta mère » ; elles remplacent les truculents
revendiquaient cet héritage par leur méconduite. Qu’on le veuille ou non, elle faisait partie du répertoire des injures bruxelloises, répertoire rabelaisien et baroque que nous devons à une culture vaguement hispanisée au 17ème siècle, où la tendance était au langage cru, contrairement à la France, qui se cherchait, sous Louis XIV, des formes policées, destinées à dompter la noblesse et le peuple, prompts aux frondes ou aux jacqueries. Aucune législation ou directive n’a cependant interdit l’emploi de cette injure haute en couleurs, contrairement aux termes habituels de « macaque » et de « bougnoul » que la police bruxelloise a reçu l’ordre de bannir définitivement de son vocabulaire quand elle s’adresse aux migrants. Le « mettekou » à Bruxelles, ou le « marticot » à Gand, sont ces petits singes à queue longue qui accompagnaient les joueurs d’orgue de Barbarie dans les rues et quémandaient des piécettes aux passants, armés d’une tirelire et affublés d’oripeaux comiques. Dans sa série « Jo, Zette et Jocko », Hergé a croqué une de ces scènes en fourrant le singe Jocko dans un uniforme rouge grotesque, lorsqu’il est recueilli par un joueur d’orgue de Barbarie après avoir perdu ses jeunes maîtres.
Die Europäische Union dürfe die Terrorbedrohung in Europa nicht ausschließlich durch die politisch korrekte Brille betrachten, sagte der freiheitliche Delegationsleiter im Europäischen Parlament, Andreas Mölzer, zu dem heute in Luxemburg beginnenden Rat der EU-Innenminister. „Die Terrorgefahr ist vor allem ein importiertes Problem, und zwar von Zuwanderern aus islamischen Ländern. Mit einer allgemeinen Einschränkung der Bürgerrechte und einem Ausbau des Überwachungsstaates wird sich daher dieses Problem nicht lösen lassen“, betonte Mölzer. 
Als äußerst positiv bezeichnete heute der freiheitliche Delegationsleiter im Europäischen Parlament, Andreas Mölzer, den Vorschlag der EU-Außenbeauftragten Catherine Ashton, Mitte November in Wien mit dem Iran Gespräche über dessen umstrittenes Atomprogramm zu führen. „Ashtons Vorstoß ist ein außenpolitischer Gehversuch der Europäischen Union, die sich offenbar doch etwas aus der erdrückenden Umklammerung der USA lösen will. Es bleibt nur zu hoffen, daß die Einladung an den Iran keine Eintagsfliege bleibt“, so Mölzer, der auch Mitglied des außenpolitischen Ausschusses des Europäischen Parlaments ist. 
