[Janice D. Soderling]

Norman, about your post #86: Come on Janice, you're more than capable of backfilling the cliches I leave out.

I am trying to understand your several posts, Norman. But they remain for the most part impenetrable. They seem to be a collection of hints, insinuations, straw man arguments and political buzzwords harvested from obscure propagandist sites and articles. I think I discern a stew of half-articulated warnings about both capitalism and socialism. In context or out of it, individual sentences such as these quoted below remain unintelligible. At least to me and it may be that your powers of persuasion are less than your enthusiasm, or that you collect your Internet gleanings in bushels of half-thought, or that I am lacking mental ovens that will bake the bread. Perhaps you can assist me? (In cases below where I have not provided traceable references, the source can be found simply by googling the text.)

Homologation, in essence,is a prelude to the panopticon where every individual is equidistant from the observation platform; an indeterminate flatland ruled by God-knows-who from above. This is borderless, global totalitarianism presided over in essence by multinational corporations and financial institutions of which the PTT is but one of its early ‘enticements’.

All right, let's try to understand that.

Homologation (the granting of approval by an official authority), in essence, is a prelude to the panopticon (Jeremy Bentham proposed the panopticon as a circular building with an observation tower in the centre of an open space surrounded by an outer wall. This wall would contain cells for occupants. This design would increase security by facilitating more effective surveillance) where every individual is equidistant from the observation platform; an indeterminate flatland ruled by God-knows-who from above. This is borderless, global totalitarianism presided over in essence by multinational corporations and financial institutions of which the PTT is but one of its early ‘enticements’.

The syntax is flawed but I think your premise is that a prerequisite for global surveillance of the citizenry by multinational companies is that an established authority gives its approval and (by implication) the EU is that central authority. I don't know the abbreviation of PTT except as Post, Telephone, Telegraph, and I think that is indeed the tree you are barking up though I don't see any possum in its branches.

The EU deregulated the national PTTs to increase competition and to standardize telecommunications. That action has had its flaws as witnessed by the ongoing scandal of one of the Swedish companies bribing in Uzbekistan and elsewhere http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0ML2VL20140324 and other easily found sources. Is that what you are intending to say with that extract above? It has also, through recent regulation, led to the lowering of excessive mobile phone tariffs throughout Europe. There are examples of both good and bad consequences, but I think we are less controlled by big business than in the US because we do not elect politicians through bottomless super-PACs.

I'm imagining a bullet-proof, Pan-European flag flying high over a desolate, bombed-out landscape. Unperturbed, the flag-wavers claim...victory. It's like nihilism in its kumbaya permutation. Or is it that some people insist on seeing a Shangri-La where's there's only an abyss? Both can't be right. What side does this week's Paris argue for?

It seems to me, Norman, that you are conflating the Pan-European organization with the EU. They have quite different roots and goals.

The International Paneuropean Union has four main basic principles: liberalism, Christianity, social responsibility, and pro-Europeanism. At the same time, it openly welcomes and acknowledges the contributions of Judaism and Islam whose heritage they share.

You may be unduly influenced by lengthy dwelling on the Russian propaganda site you touted in your post # 15 http://russia-insider.com/en/politic...empire/ri10025 , the (as I told your earlier) Russia-backed propaganda site.

Your generosity towards the influx of Muslims is abundant and well-evidenced. But how did ‘white supremacism’ suddenly get a dog in this hunt? And it’s kind of you to note that Breivik is a ‘so-called’ Christian. He was a paranoid schizophrenic too, and as such does not rise to the level of ideological practitioner. There's enough antipathy towards Christianity without lashing a demonstrable psychopath to its mast; so, while a very interesting comment from you, a non sequitur for this discussion.

Firstly, the Norwegian massacre was very close to home. Not only in geographic terms, but in emotional terms. Like nearly everyone else in Sweden, I am personally acquainted with someone who was directly touched by it. I am somewhat dubious about your expertise in the matter.

Secondly, yes, I wrote "so-called" because Breivik refers to himself as both Christian and white .

"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised [sic] and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_910379.html

His final diagnosis was not paranoid schizophrenic.

Forensic psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, who conducted the psychiatric analysis of Breivik and released their report in December 2011, found that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, supporting a would-be insanity defence or criminal insanity ruling by the court. However, subject to massive criticism from legal and psychiatric experts, the court decided to appoint two new psychiatrists, Terje Tørrissen and Agnar Aspaas, who were to conduct another analysis. Breivik was initially uncooperative with the new psychiatrists because of the previous report having been leaked to the media, but he later changed his mind and decided to cooperate. On 10 April 2012, psychiatrists found that Breivik was legally sane. If that conclusion is upheld, Breivik can be sentenced to prison or containment.

That conclusion was upheld and he is now in prison.

Explaining why the court found Breivik to be sane, the court stated that "many people share Breivik's conspiracy theory, including the Eurabia theory. The court finds that very few people, however, share Breivik's idea that the alleged "Islamization" should be fought with terror."

This perhaps is as good a place as any to define the word Eurabia and consider where it comes from. Personally I do not think it is worthy of being introduced into any respectable debate (which this one may or may not be) unless it is defined and dissected rather than being injected as a clever buzzword.

Eurabia is a political neologism. The concept was coined by Bat Ye'or in the early 2000s. Bat Ye'Or (pen name of Gisele Littman) claims a conspiracy of Europe, allegedly led by France and Arab powers, to Islamise and Arabise Europe, thereby weakening its existing culture and undermining an alleged previous alignment with the U.S. and Israel.

The term has gained some public interest and has been used and discussed across a wide range of the political spectrum, including far-right activists, counterjihadis and different sorts of antiislamist and conservative activists. Bat Ye'Or’s “Mother conspiracy theory” has been used for further subtheories. The narrative grew important in expressing Islamophobic sentiments and was used by movements like "Stop Islamisation of Europe". It gained renewed interest after the 9/11 events and the use of the term by 2011 Norway attacker Anders Behring Breivik. It is as well a part of classical Anti-Europeanism, a strong influence in American culture and American exceptionalism which sometimes sees Europe on the decline or as a rising rival power, or, as is the case here, both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia

This post is already too lengthy so I won't give any more examples. Norman, I hope this will give you an idea of why I find your posts to incline more toward obtuse rants than meaningful contribution to an important discussion.