European Parliamentary Election: Avoid European Leaders Imposing Hard Core Wahhabism

Remember the Wahhabist Friendly Powers That Be In The European Union. Such As Jihadist Judges at the European Court of Human Rights!

The European elections are next weekend. People have approached me, and asked me who to vote for. I have two answers about who NOT to vote for:

Don’t vote for “ecologists” who are against nuclear energy. 93% of the energy of the world at this point comes from making CO2, nuclear deniers are ignorant, lunatics, hypocrites, or all the preceding. CO2 is warming the planet too fast, and acidifying the oceans, evolution can’t follow. The combination could lead to the ultimate catastrophe; collapse of the oxygen making system. Nuclear energy from fission, Thorium and fusion, has to be deployed ASAP. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/05/30/global-hypoxia/ (I am also 100% for solar, etc.; but they will be too little, too late…)

Don’t vote for those who consider that Wahhabism is NOT a danger. Wahhabism (literal Islam) is intrinsically terrible, but also a Trojan horse against reason pushed by global plutocracy. It is part of a complex plot (deliberate or not, conscious or not) to subjugate the world, by the powers that be (often in finance).

We should go back to fundamentals. Clearly the creature is a fruit of synthetic biology…

[Wahhabism is generally confused with “Islam”… something which should infuriate, and often does, the other one hundred other types of Islam… All the more as Wahhabism was so hard core primitive, that it was already outlawed in 12 C Egypt, five centuries before Wahhab was born. But Wahhab made a symbiotic alliance with the Saudis, so here we are…]

The debate of what Islam exactly was started during Muhammad’s lifetime. Actually, people closest to the Prophet tried to kill him by pushing his camel off a mountain path. (Muhammad knew who they were, but refused to say, lest they be killed, and Islam fractured.) Right after his death, things got way worse: the announcement of his death was delayed until Muhammad started to rot and balloon up, some verses of the Qur’an got eaten by a goat (Aisha told a furious sexist Omar), and so on. Omar and Abu Bakr (“brother” and father in law of Muhammad) grabbed power, and their version of the Qur’an. However, Uthman imposed his own Qur’an later, and an all-out Muslim against Muslim war started, with the closest people to Muhammad at each other’s throats… that war goes on to this day…

The Qur’an is around 80,000 words (I counted them myself!) It was controversially written/re-organized under the 4th Caliph. However, Islamist follow millions of “sacred” words often written many generations after the so-called “messenger’s death…

***

European Court Of Human Rights = European Court Of Islamization

A woman referred to as E.S. was convicted in Austria for talking about known events in Muhammad, the so-called “Messenger” of god, the great bully in heavens. In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld this woman’s 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold that Muhammad’s third wife, Aisha, was 6 at the time of their marriage and 9 at its consummation. That too, is not contested by the most hard core Jihhadists, Salafists, and Wahhabists: it’s in the sacred texts.

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s (the age of the Prophet is quite uncertain, it turns out; don’t believe those who tell you Muhammad was exactly 54…) The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in prison. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

The ECHR wants us to lie about Islam, when telling what is in Islam texts is inconvenient. If we don’t, we have to go to prison:

When Muhammad married 6 year old Aisha, he seems to have been in his early 50s. The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in the slammer. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.[1]

Tell the truth about Muhammad Having Sex With Children, and the European Court of HUMAN RIGHTS will send you to prison for 60 days. Nevermind that these historical facts are front and central in the most basic Muslim texts. Solution? Bring political power to bear on these so-called “judges”.Here are some of the original texts from the Hadith:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

***

The New York Times published a long article on anti-Judaism coming back to Germany. Long description, but zero explanation in depth. I sent a comment providing necessary depth:

The Abrahamic religions started with Judaism. Christianism was born, in Greek, during the war of fascist Rome against Judea. Christianism was friendly to Caesar, and enemy of Judaism (some view initial Christian texts as Flavian propaganda). Six centuries later, Islam appeared, considering Jews as even more wrong on Abraham than the Christians. Thus, both Christianism & Islamism have a strong antipathy to Judaism… Yet arose from it, so can’t just annihilate them, most of the time. Hence the ongoing scapegoating of Jews. This will go on as long as Abrahamism rules in the background!  

It got published, but not so the second one:
The moods created by religions it itself brought to life, caused much of the mood against Judaism (Roman imperial rage against Israel helped the process). Western anti-Judaism was greatly caused by Christianism. A common myth among intellectuals, Muslims and others who don’t know Islam well, including occidental islamophiles, is that Islam has nothing to do with anti-Judaism. Some academics even lie. As the NYT says: “Many Muslims criticize the notion of “Muslim anti-Semitism” as wrongly suggesting that hatred of Jews is intrinsic to their faith. Muhammad Sameer Murtaza, a German scholar of Islam who has written extensively on anti-Semitism, argues that European anti-Semitism was exported to the Middle East in the 19th century and was only “Islamized” starting in the late 1930s…”

This is gross disinformation, fake news. There is massive anti-Judaism in the Qur’an…. And it is found in later, “Meccan”, abrogating verses (so nice, pro-Jewish verses don’t count). An example is from the second and longest chapter of the Quran, the Cow: Quran 2;61 says: “And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them [Jews], and they were laden with the burden of God’s anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of God and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors.”

Naturally the Hadith went further. Islam in its fundamental texts is lethally anti-Judaic. Here is an example: the following is part of Hamas’ constitution.  

This is Hadith 41;6985: ”Allah’s Messenger: The last hour would NOT COME UNLESS the Muslims will FIGHT AGAINST THE JEWS and the MUSLIMS WOULD KILL THEM until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and KILL HIM…”

The verses in the Qur’an nasty for Jews are from the 13 year long Meccan period, after Muhammad 10 year stay in Jewish city Yathrib (now Medina). Thus they abrogate the earlier verses.

It is high time to realize that the elites in charge of the European Union have been serving themselves, and the conception of elite, the Davos Club, they profit from. In particular, not enough Euros have been created. In particular, Europe has not been defended against exporting jobs, most of them to China. Make no mistake: I am pro-Chinese. However, at this point, China is on its way to the Moon, and Europe on its way to oblivion.

Macron may mean well, but he acts weak, because he is fundamentally a creature of financial plutocracy, which has been ruling the world (but not China). A few months ago, I would have advised to vote Macron. But that was before he absolutely refused to enable RIC, Referendums on Initiatives from the Citizens (in his last version, he still wants 182 French MPs to agree, plus one million signature; one million should be enough… the number of signatures is roughly in line with California)

We need tougher solutions in Europe, don’t vote weak.

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] Here is the introduction and beginning of the ECHR’s judgement: on the face of it the judges of the ECHR take us for terrorized idiots without dignity. The gist of it is that if an Islamist marries a 6 year old, and has sex with her when she is 9, that does NOT show the Islamist “has had paedophilic tendencies”… and to say so hurts Islamists, and that latter fact is against European law.

 

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of E.S. v. Austria (application no. 38450/12) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for disparaging religious doctrines; she had made statements suggesting that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies. The Court found in particular that the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria. It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.

 

Principal facts The applicant, E.S., is an Austrian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Vienna (Austria). In October and November 2009, Mrs S. held two seminars entitled “Basic Information on Islam”, in which she discussed the marriage between the Prophet Muhammad and a six-year old girl, Aisha, which allegedly was consummated when she was nine. Inter alia, the applicant stated that Muhammad “liked to do it with children” and “… A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? … What do we call it, if it is not paedophilia?”. On 15 February 2011 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that these statements implied that Muhammad had had paedophilic tendencies, and convicted Mrs S. for disparaging religious doctrines. She was ordered to pay a fine of 480 euros and the costs of the proceedings. Mrs S. appealed but the Vienna Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2011, confirming in essence the lower court’s findings. A request for the renewal of the proceedings was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 December 2013. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Mrs S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression. If they had done so, they would not have qualified them as mere value judgments but as value judgments based on facts. Furthermore, her criticism of Islam occurred in the framework of an objective and lively discussion which contributed to a public debate”

 

Here is the name of the Wahhabismophile so-called “judges”.

 

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows: Angelika Nußberger (Germany), President, André Potocki (France), Síofra O’Leary (Ireland), Mārtiņš Mits (Latvia), Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (Austria), Lәtif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan), Lado Chanturia (Georgia), and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar

 

The European Court Of Human Rights seems as confused as a group of six year old children. Here is the core of their decision. Notice the absurdities:

 

“The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship. It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others. The national courts found that Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.”

 

So “applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship.”

 

So the ECHR thinks that relating what is in Islamist texts demonstrate Muhammad is not worthy of worship?” And why should a human rights court care?

 

[The ECHR] “agreed… Mrs S. had subjectively labelled Muhammad with paedophilia as his general sexual preference, and that she failed to neutrally inform her audience of the historical background, which consequently did not allow for a serious debate on that issue.

 

Now why would one worship someone who children (pedo) love (philia) so much in a perverted way they have sex with them at age 9? Can the dimwits at the ECHR give us one, just ONE, other historical example. Just one, “Human Rights” buffoons, in the entire history of civilization (examples of royal children married early exist, but they were between the children themselves, and were not consummated, be it only for the good and simple reason prepubescent children are not sexually equipped.

 

Muhammad was a child rapist, and, moreover, his followers were so blind, they didn’t notice to this day, although the facts are in the very book they allegedly got from their so-called “god”, through aforesaid child rapist.

 

OK, agreed, Muhammad was an excellent, good natured, gifted and enlightened rapist; Aisha ended up loving him sincerely, and he let her roam, and being strong and free. Aisha famously asserted Muhammad was much less sexist than his successors….

 

More from the mental dwarves at the ECHR:

“The Court found in conclusion that in the instant case the domestic courts carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society. 3 The Court held further that even in a lively discussion it was not compatible with Article 10 of the Convention to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression

The judgment is available only in English.”

Why only in English? Because it were in Austrian language, which is German, it would use the same buzz words as the Nazis? Yes, it would! The ECHR dimwits, so ignorant of history, obviously do not know of the strong connections between nazism and islam, enduring to this day. Right, Nazism is dead, but the Muslim Brotherhood it helped to create, is alive and well!

***

P/S: A reader reminded me of an enormity: Muhammad died when Aisha was eighteen. The enormity? The Qur’an itself ordered that she should never re-marry:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL. Qur’an, Surah 33, Verse 53:
“O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.”

Tags: , , , ,

22 Responses to “European Parliamentary Election: Avoid European Leaders Imposing Hard Core Wahhabism”

  1. brodix Says:

    Patrice,

    The problem goes deeper than Islam. The essential fallacy is with monotheism. It conflates the ideal with the absolute.
    The absolute is the equilibrium, from which action and thus complexity rises, while an ideal would be some perfect form, or state.
    The consequence is that it politically empowers the most conservative aspects of a society, as those are most concerned with its civil and cultural forms, than the dynamic driving it and pushing against those forms and having to periodically shed them, in order to continue growing.
    We are mobile organisms and are indoctrinated to cultural forms that tell us we are all going someplace special, as a way to keep us in line, rather than that nature is cyclical, reciprocal and feedback between opposites.
    The reaction to our actions is building……

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I always say, and said in the essay that This anti-Judaism is all about Abrahamism… Its own followers love to hate it, because they adore it too much.
      Abrahamism itself is the cult of the great baboon in the sky… How much more enraging can one get?

      Like

  2. Anonymous Says:

    As I seem to recall the Austrian court first tried to prosecute the accusation of Mohamed’s pedophilia on the grounds that there was no evidence. When evidence was presented the court decided that there was no condition back in his time of pedophilia, so the prosecution was because of disparagement of a non existent crime.
    Presumably that court would have no objection to Mohamed being called a child fucker

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I don’t know of one historical figure having sex with a less than ten year old, anywhere, so the Austrian court can go fuck itself.
      There are examples of Nazis committing atrocities against children… Killing them. But fucking them?
      Right, it has happened and still does happen with all sorts of deranged maniacs…
      Pedophile Greeks, etc, waited for a significantly older age…
      And the notion of pedophilia existed, back in the age: in the beginning, the Romans were shocked by the Greeks… Although those engaged much older than 9 year old boys…
      So the Austrian court of baboons decided that Muhammad was too ape like to have a notion of pedophilia? But even baboons have it…

      Like

  3. benign Says:

    Tear it down and start over again with the US Constitution as a basis, with one federal debt–and no quasi-governmental central bank (the private central bank is prohibited from buying government debt, it holds only high quality corporate debt and only bails out private corporations). Even though the “states” would have distinct identities the system would be fair. States could go bankrupt individually. The EU would self-finance with a VAT (sales tax).

    The American Bill of Rights, now treated like toilet paper by the US government, is a thing of great beauty. There are reasonable limits on free speech (do not incite violence, etc.) but the strictures on speech (and thought) you refer to–also the Holocaust denial criminality stuff–these are are hideous.

    In China you can have your life destroyed for criticizing the government. Hope we don’t go there.

    cheers,
    b

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The EU VAT is mandated (“more than 15%”), but goes to the nations.
      The UK has been the headquarters of the anti-US mentality (“EU is not a federal state, but a “club”, or “block””)
      I should have added I am starting to switch to the Brexit camp, like Macron, because the Brits are unrecoverable, they just want the EU not to exist beyond a custom area, and now not even that.

      Now let me understand this: in the present USA, the Fed buys government debt. Same with European Central Bank. Right now.

      The central bank, and money center banks doesn’t seem to me to finance worthy projects enough, in US or EU. That’s the big difference with China. Where the latter is going? Hard to know. Latest numbers indicate economy is braking hard (5% growth), because of Trump partial dismantlement of Chinamerica… Xi’s crackdown makes him lots of enemies: not clear he will get away with it forever….

      The “populist” parties in Europe are forced to cooperate… They talk of a Europe of nations, but are also fed up with tight European Central Bank tightness… So I have been for 20 years… Euro should be at 75 US cents….

      Like

  4. benign Says:

    With a California-like ability to run direct democracy propositions within countries or across the EU. Naturally.

    Like

  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    I added this P/S:
    A reader reminded me of an enormity: Muhammad died when Aisha was eighteen. The enormity? The Qur’an itself ordered that she should never re-marry:

    SAHIH INTERNATIONAL. Qur’an, Surah 33, Verse 53:
    “O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allah is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.”

    Like

  6. brodix Says:

    Rather that trying to establish some otherwise unquestioned set of do’s and don’ts for society, teach that there is this dichotomy of energies/emotions/desires always pushing life along, with the forms and structures coalescing out of it. So that in order to function as a coherent entity, culture and government acts like a central nervous system to learn and decide which impulses are to be encouraged, which to be tolerated, which to be discouraged and which need to be actively prevented. Much as we decide not to murder that particular co-worker, even if they totally deserve it, because of our desire not to spend our life in jail.
    Reality is not monolithic. There are different aspects and many which repulse, as well as attract. It’s a network, not a node. Even our cosmology tries to explain the entire universe as a node and they have to keep adding fixes to it. Including the multiverse, as the network is unavoidable. The only node we really are defined by is the planet.
    It’s not that complicated. The average 5 year old can probably understand it. It’s just that once people get their collective minds wrapped around something, it takes total armageddon to unwrap it.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There is no other organization as complex as the EU… So the do’s and don’ts there are rather diluted… Example: Even in the case of the Euro, the Greek Central Bank could have printed as many Euros as needed….

      Like

      • brodix Says:

        Complexity of itself isn’t bad. Nature developed levels of organic complexity humanity can barely understand, hundreds of millions of years ago.
        Though it goes through cycles of regeneration, as they do develop unstable feedback loops, incorporated as birth and death.
        The conceptual flaw is trying to negate the process, in order to stabilize the pattern, when the pattern is emergent from the process.
        Process goes past to future patterns, as patterns coalesce and dissolve. In the equilibrium stage, it selects for complexity, as every niche and resource is used. While in the punctuation stage, it selects for adaptability, as the complexity collapses.
        After the reset, new patterns start to emerge.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I am all for complexity. Humanity is all about complexity, be it only complexity of analysis. RIC (Referendum Initiative Citizens) is all about complexity. Advanced thinking is more complex thinking…
          So complex EU is not problem… Real problem with EU right now is that ain’t democratic enough… But that’s not because “Brussels” as EC takes all the decisions… Those are taken by the European Council (elected governments), confirmed or not by EU Parliament…

          Like

          • brodix Says:

            They are trying to create a Tower of Babel, but there is no ideal form of government. The friction between those multitudes of desires bubbling up, against the need to mediate and referee what happens and what doesn’t, is as real as the conflict between the emotions and the sorting of logic.
            If we better appreciated that dichotomy, rather than a culture based on the assumption of some ideal form, whether happiness, religious, government, ethics, wealth, or any of the other multitudes of desires our current bout of identity politics espouses, than maybe we wouldn’t always be freaking out about the frictions that do occur and are a big part of what makes reality real.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            European Union as a tower of Babel? They all speak English! What’s interesting is that the nationalist anti-European parties of the past, have now turned around, and become pro-EU. They just ask for a different sort of EU, and they unite together… So it’s working, in part thanks to Brexit.

            The Brexit main driver has been PLUTO PRESS, and the Brits are addicted to it. other countries have Pluto Press too, but there the press is less vicious and crazy. Britain, overall, is held too much by non British plutocracy… Murdoch being exhibit number one… That foreign influence caused a media that is deely insane and ant–British people (I read it, so I know…) To disguise that, they get highly colorful with rainbow herrings all over the place.

            Brexit itself has been rendered possibly by Corbyn, historically the most ancient anti-EU politician, who heads Labor. Any decent Labor head could have forced a second referendum… May sort of proposed it recently, and Labor could have agreed to it, in exchange for her support. But Corbyn hates the EU (supposedly and allegedly, he hates Jews too…)

            Like

          • brodix Says:

            I suspect those of the original tower could communicate, but had competing interests and desires.
            Negative feedback overwhelmed the positive feedback.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Savages in the past talked many languages… Does that make those of us who are monolingual the savages?

            Like

          • brodix Says:

            We are talking past one another, because we have an ideals based culture, in a cyclical, feedback oriented reality. Basically the two sides of the coin are fighting each other, as each thinks their ideals are superior, rather than balancing out the other.

            Like

  7. ianmillerblog Says:

    In my opinion, the EU should either become the United States of Europe, or it should devolve back to a common market, but right now it is neither, and is more arranged for some of the rich to make more money. The European Parliament, as far as I can see, is not relevant because most of the power lies in the Commission and that is unelected. Britain has itself in a tangle because it doesn’t like the way the commission is handling things (apart from the rich), but rather than try and help fix things it has decided to leave, but it can’t even get that right.

    The lies will continue. The failure of British Steel is blamed on Brexit, but since it hasn’t left yet, that seems unlikely. More likely is the fact that since joining the EU Britain has exported its manufacturing, so steel has little home market.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, well, the “Custom Union” was (part of) the deal… before UK PM Thatcher… Under thatcher, the EU switched to the “Single Market”, which unified the EU economically, beyond no customs… But through all sorts of regulations…
      The UK asked to be outside so many European organizations, it’s beyond silly…
      Now by leaving EU, UK Parliament decided to go even outside Euratom… That means, among other things, it’s not clear how the UK keeps on doing research in fusion (JET got a special reprieve of a few months…)…

      The European Commission has no power. It’s the European Council which has the power. And the Parliament.

      The European Council is a collective body that defines the European Union’s overall political direction and priorities. It comprises the heads of state or government of the EU member states, along with the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Wikipedia
      President: Donald Tusk
      Location: Europa building, Brussels
      Founded: 2009
      Type of business: Institution of the European Union
      Formation: 1961 (informally); 2009 (formally)

      The European Parliament has power to block laws prepared by EC under order from the European Council. Also it names the head of the EC… Inter Alia…

      That “Brussels”, meaning the EC has all the power is the lie promoted by Brexiters…

      Other European nationalists know that’s a lie. And act accordingly: they believe in the EU…

      Like

  8. Gmax Says:

    The corruption of these European judges is bewildering. As you say, the Davos crowd is Islamic ingredients Europe

    Like

Leave a Reply to Gmax Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: