Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Coming European Crack-Up?

Coming Anarchy imagines a future Europe where the continent's various semi-latent separatist movements have achieved their goals:

secessionist europe map

The cartographer lists two conditions as necessary for a successful devolutionary/secessionist movement:
First, the state must be well off economically and able to hold it’s own, i.e. it must have more to gain than lose. Hence, states like Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria are the two richest in Germany, essentially subsidizing the rest would have more motivation than the poor underdeveloped east German states which feed off the rest. The second condition is that the region must have a well developed and unique identity which comes in the form of a strong dialect or different language, history of independence or autonomy and other characteristics that go into defining a culture. Thus, Bavaria (which is actually what most people think about when they think of Germany) is both rich and has a long cultural past and different identity. It has its own dialect, a history of independence and a host of other unique traits including traditional song, dance, clothes etc that other regions lack.
I was recently reading an article about World War II. Specifically, I was reading an article about the horrific paroxysms of ghoulish violence that constituted World War II, something about which it's good, if unpleasant, to be reminded from time to time. That violence is epitomized by the Holocaust, of course, but there was far more to it than that: fire-bombings, mass starvation, death marches through the countryside, castration, rape, torture... For all intents and purposes, Armageddon came to Europe in the 1940s.

That was less than 70 years ago; it's still within living memory. But since that time Western Europe has become the most stable, peaceful, and prosperous region in the world. The European Union is developing into a real trans-national sovereignty, something I don't believed has ever happened in a non-colonialist context in the history of the world. But all of this stability and prosperity has been so world-historically anomalous; if, in 70 years, we've gone from the Warsaw Ghetto to dickering over farm subsidies in Brussels, would an inverse movement - away from peace, away from cultural and economic integration - be just as possible?

The map above actually represents a benign vision of the future; European stability is a precondition for the success of the separatist movements this map highlights. But it makes me wonder if the stability and current shape of Europe is something we take too much for granted. There's one sure bet, at any rate: if you try to predict the future simply by extrapolating current trends, you're bound to be wrong.

By the way: Brittany has a separatist movement??

(Via The Map Room via Andrew Sullivan.)

43 comments:

Chachy said...

And there I've gone and taken a perfectly cerebral exercise and injected my own visions of catastrophe. Sorry, everybody! That WWII thing really got to me I guess.

Linca said...

Yes, Bretagne has an independence movement, and even a few terrorrism who blow up bombs (very rarely). Normandy, OTOH, has no independence movement I've heard of ; Savoy and Alsace, possibly even Occitany, have more prominent independence parties.

Diego said...

Chachy,

but for Scotland and Flanders, no other independentist movement has the necessary broad support.

But what really struck me is the author seemed to believe every new nation would necessarily be a republic! That's far from the truth!

E.g. Bavarian nationalists (who get no more than 2% of the votes) want to return to the Kingdom of Bavaria, not a republic! Nor is there a Republican tradition in the Basque country, Scotland, etc.

Anyway, where it to happen, it would happen peacefully and inside the European Union... so trade, democracy, minorities' right, etc. would suffer no changes. It would rather be just a nominal change.

Diego said...

Some more criticism:

1. The Basque country (as coloured in the map), Padania and others have never been independent entities, nor do they have a unified language.

2. Being richer doesn't mean subsidizing the rest. The Basque country is fiscally independent; the only shared budget with the rest of Spain is Social Security, which adds 1% to Basque GDP. So they are, in fact, subsidized by the rest of Spain.

A similar argument could be made about Southern Germany and other rich regions. Transfers are limited to 4% regional GDP, but the money Germany spends in infrastructure, trains, technology, etc. for the poorer Eastern regions ends up as bigger GDP in the richer regions, where that technology, etc. is mostly designed and produced.

3. But for Flanders and Scotland, no other region is seriously proposing seccession. Nationalism or regionalism may have broad support as a way of preserving the region's historical language(s), getting more money/infrastructure from the central state, and general "devolution" or de-centralizing power. But that doesn't equal separatism.

E.g. A qualifying majority of Catalans feel Catalonia is a nation, but so is Spain ("a nation made up of nations"); they feel both Catalans and Spaniards, and they speak both Catalan and Spanish fluently. And Catalonia is extremely nationalist when compared to Bavaria, Normandy and the like.

Outright separatist parties have only a marginal support in any coloured regions, but for (maybe) Scotland and Flanders.

Andrew said...

"The European Union is developing into a real trans-national sovereignty, something I don't believed has ever happened in a non-colonialist context in the history of the world."

The Roman Empire, Frankish/Holy Roman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Muslim Caliphate, Ottoman Empire, ancient and modern India could all be argued as being similar trans-national soveriegnties, provided one does not define away their similiarity by narrowing the category too far into requiring modern civil insititutions.

The post-1848 Austro-Hungarian Empire especially had striking similarities in terms of trans-national government to the EU, perhaps not accidentally given the prominent role of Otto von Hapsburg in forming the modern EU.

Diego said...

Andrew,

you could also add modern China and the Spanish Empire (which, unlike the British Empire, considered the Spanish America an integral part of Spain, on the same footing with other Spanish regions).

But I think Chachy was misunderstood. He didn't mean "in a non-colonialist context", but "joining through a peaceful, willing process".

All the previous examples, both Andrew's and mine, were the result of conquests, wars and violent repression. On the contrary, the European Union is a democratic alliance of 27 different nations who have decided to join freely and peacefully.

This is unique in history, despite the obvious antecedents of the German Customs Union (Zollverein) and the unification of Italy (both of which weren't so free and peaceful and, after all, happened arguably on a single nation).

Mark A. Sadowski said...

My Scottish cousins all vote SNP. Their perspective is that now that there's an EU why do we need a UK? Scotland is subsidizing the rest of the UK and the Scottish cultural identity would stand a much better chance of survival if she had somewhat greater autonomy and didn't have to put up with an overabundance of "white settlers" (English immigrants).

But this time I think we can achieve it without bearing pikes and donning blue paint, so Chachy should put his visions of catastrophe to rest.

Chachy said...

Diego (and Linca) - Thanks for those observations. Interesting. And to some extent, I suppose that all secessionist movements are sui generis, as they all depend on a local cultural context and historical grievances, so maybe its hard to develop a single classification for these disparate movements. Plus you'll note that the author hedges by calling these "possibilities."

And yes, 'joining in a peaceful, willing process' is a better way to put it.

MS - Yeah, it seems like the success of many of these movements would be more likely with an increasingly strong EU government, such that the consequences of national sovereignty are less.

Mark A. Sadowski said...

Chachy,
By the way I came across the following after I posted my comment and nearly burst my sides laughing. (It's funny because it's true.)

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Scottish

Andrew said...

"The Basque country (as coloured in the map), Padania and others have never been independent entities, nor do they have a unified language."

Basque Country = Kingdom of Navarre - independent state from ~800 AD to ~1600 AD

Padania = Kingdom of Savoy (minus Sardinia) + Duchy of Venice. Most certainly long independent of Tuscany, the Papal States, and the Two Sicilies.

Diego said...

Andrew,

no part of the Basque country (as coloured in the map) was ever independent.

Navarre, which is completely outside the coloured part of the map and has no endogenous separatist movement, was an independent Kingdom before modern Spain existed (but not afterwards!). For some decades, the kings of Navarre ruled Castile (another of Spain's predecessors) and, as such, they ruled the Basque country (which belonged to Castile), too.

But the Basque country (not Navarre!) has never been independent. Nor has there ever been an independent state with a Basque language as its official language. Navarre was a Spanish-speaking administration on a Spanish-speaking region.

Nor is there even a single Basque language. There are 6 of them; some are mutually inteligible (like Spanish and Portuguese), some others are not (like Spanish and Rumanian).

The same happens to Padania. It has never been a single independent entity; you can't just add the Republic of Venice, the Duchy of Milan, the Duchy of Savoy and some other minor entities and somehow create a historical falsification called "Padania".

Moreover, 8 different local languages are spoken in Padania, including Venetian, Lombard and Piedmontese. The only common language in so-called Padania is Italian.

And the only common language in the Basque country is Spanish.

So let me repeat it, for clarity's sake: "The Basque country (as coloured in the map), Padania and others have never been independent entities, nor do they have a unified language."

Andrew said...

Navarre, which is completely outside the coloured part of the map

How convenient! Use modern boundaries to define historical entities with differing borders!

But the Basque country (not Navarre!) has never been independent.

Read-up dear denying soul:

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

Some choice quotes:

"The kingdom of Navarre was formed when local Basque leader Íñigo Arista was elected or declared King in Pamplona"

"In the year 905 a Leonese chronicle mentions the extension of the Kingdom of Pamplona for the first time, being clear that it extended then to Nájera and Arba (arguably Araba), what for some implies that it included the Western Basque Country"

"At its greatest extent the Kingdom of Navarre included all the modern Spanish province; the northern slope of the western Pyrenees called by the Spaniards the ultra puertos ("country beyond the mountain passes") or French Navarre; the Basque provinces of Spain and France; the Bureba, the valley between the Basque mountains and the Montes de Oca to the north of Burgos; the Rioja and Tarazona in the upper valley of the Ebro."

Nor has there ever been an independent state with a Basque language as its official language.

Yes, the pre-Roman Vascones (i.e. Basques) don't count because they were a "tribe" without a "history" and therefore without a "state", despite a visible history on the ground dating back towards 5000 BC. Just a bunch of unorganized Basque speaking mountain hicks, I suppose, right?

Could you be more biased?

Navarre was a Spanish-speaking administration on a Spanish-speaking region.

I didn't know they spoke Spanish across the Pyrennees, but I suppose anything is possible to a denier. They most certainly do not speak Spanish in northern Navarre except because of the imposition of Spanish upon the Basuqes.

Nor is there even a single Basque language. There are 6 of them

These are called dialects, not languages. Do you understand the difference?

The same happens to Padania. It has never been a single independent entity; you can't just add the Republic of Venice, the Duchy of Milan, the Duchy of Savoy and some other minor entities and somehow create a historical falsification called "Padania".

Yeah sure. Cis-alpine Gaul? Never existed. A non-entity like Germany before 1870. And since it never existed, it shouldn't be permitted to exist, dammit!

Moreover, 8 different local languages are spoken in Padania, including Venetian, Lombard and Piedmontese. The only common language in so-called Padania is Italian.

Dialect =/= Language. At least not among us English speakers.

I suppose you think Australian English is a seperate language from American English?

Gus Snarp said...

Andrew - Are you the same Andrew who likes to deny global warming and peak oil? I thought you were a Free Market idealogue, but it turns out you're just contrary. Or perhaps you have Basque ancestry and are taking this a tad too personally?

Richard said...

I don't think he's being contrary. He seems to be libertarian.

Diego said...

Andrew,

I must say the English Wikipedia article on the Kingdom of Navarre is sub-standard. If you are interested, you can find additional information on the "Discussion" page and the Spanish Wikipedia page.

The rest of my post will try to answer Andrew; please read only at your own risk of boreness.

"The kingdom of Navarre was formed when local Basque leader Íñigo Arista was elected or declared King in Pamplona"

Why Basque? Íñigo is a Spanish name, and he is said to be related to Navarrese (Jiménez, i.e. Spanish families) and Muslim families. All the land he got was a inheritance from his mother's powerful husband, Banu Qasi Musá ibn Fortún.

"In the year 905 a Leonese chronicle mentions the extension of the Kingdom of Pamplona for the first time, being clear that it extended then to Nájera and Arba (arguably Araba), what for some implies that it included the Western Basque Country"

There are dozens of contradictory chronicles, and this is the only one where the Western Basque country seem to belong to Navarre. Why so? Nájera is not in the Basque country, and Arba could be Araba, or just another town.

Anyway, since this is only mentioned in this single chronicle, the prudent historian must be skeptical. You can't draw all subsequent maps with all Western Basque country in Navarre (as the English Wikipedia does) just because of a single, unreliable source.

"At its greatest extent the Kingdom of Navarre included all the modern Spanish province; the northern slope of the western Pyrenees called by the Spaniards the ultra puertos ("country beyond the mountain passes") or French Navarre; the Basque provinces of Spain and France; the Bureba, the valley between the Basque mountains and the Montes de Oca to the north of Burgos; the Rioja and Tarazona in the upper valley of the Ebro."

The only source for Navarre including the Spanish Basque provinces is the unreliable source commented earlier; the only source for it including the French Basque provinces, is another single, unreliable and misinterpreted chronicle.

The Basques did create a nation: it was called Castile. They started to re-poblate lands south of the Basque country, and a new language was formed influenced by Basque and vernacular Latin: the Spanish language.

This new entity, Castile, which comprised the Basque provinces, was under Leonese rule and then under Navarrese rule. The King of Navarre DID rule the Basque provinces for some decades; but just because he ruled on Castile, and the Basque provinces belonged to Castile.

Diego said...

Answer to Andrew (II):

"Yes, the pre-Roman Vascones (i.e. Basques) don't count because they were a "tribe" without a "history" and therefore without a "state", despite a visible history on the ground dating back towards 5000 BC. Just a bunch of unorganized Basque speaking mountain hicks, I suppose, right?"

If you want to count a prehistorical family of tribes as an independent state, then ok, they were independent! They had no known state structure, architecture, alphabet, etc. unlike lots of other different tribes around Spain.

It is impossible to determine what exactly did they speak; it possibly was Aquitanian, a supposed predecessor of today's Basque languages. The question is: did they speak the same tongue as the rest of pre-Roman Iberians? Were they different from the rest of Spain's people at that time? They were less advanced, indeed, but that's impossible to know.

"Navarre was a Spanish-speaking administration on a Spanish-speaking region."

Navarre (unlike the Basque country) was conquered by the Romans; hence, they spoke vernacular Latin, which derived to Spanish. All written laws are either in Latin, Occitan dialects, Aragonese or Spanish; there is not a single document written in Basque. A small minority of Basque-speakers are supposed to have lived in the mountains (as they do now; we're talking less than 50,000 people here), but nothing else.

In Northern Navarre, they spoke Occitan, not Basque. Please understand: Navarre is the Basque country's neighbour, not a part of the Basque country.

"These are called dialects, not languages. Do you understand the difference?"

As I understand it, all dialects of a single language must be mutually intelligible almost to a full extent. Basque dialects are not mutually intelligible; someone from the Eastern Basque country can't hold a complex conversation in "Basque" with someone on Navarre.

Now, if you want to call them the same language, ok. They'll be speaking the same language, just not understanding each other.

The artificial Basque language taught at schools, "Unified Basque", is... 40 years old, and has been popular for no longer than 2 decades. It is used in "formal" contexts, such as school, TV news, etc. but has exactly ZERO native speakers, since everyone still speaks their "mutually unintelligible dialects" at home.

Diego said...

Answer to Andrew (III and last):

"Yeah sure. Cis-alpine Gaul? Never existed. A non-entity like Germany before 1870. And since it never existed, it shouldn't be permitted to exist, dammit!"

When was Cis-Alpine Gaul an independent state? My point is not that is shouldn't be permitted to exist. Let them build their own country if they so desperately want! The question is: are people separatist because of historical factors, economic factors, or is there a hidden factor? More on that later.

"Moreover, 8 different local languages are spoken in Padania, including Venetian, Lombard and Piedmontese. The only common language in so-called Padania is Italian."

As in the Basque country, they are not mutually intelligible. They have different vocabulary, grammar, etc.!

"I suppose you think Australian English is a seperate language from American English?"

No, they are different dialects. They understand each other perfectly. Not so for Basque languages, German so-called "dialects", Italian languages, etc.

Diego said...

Sorry for the long post.

I was just trying to answer this question: are regions separatist because of historical factors, cultural factors, economic factors, or is there a hidden factor?

I have given this a lot of thought, and I am pretty sure historical/cultural factors don't play a big role in contemporary nationalism.

Every small region in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. can trace its history back to a lapse, however brief, when it had autonomy or even independence and had its own language. Separatism doesn't correlate with historical independence/autonomy, nor with cultural identity.

Take Andalusia in Southern Spain. They surely have a definite cultural identity: heavy dialects, flamenco dances, gypsy blood and joie de vivre, a more emotional view of religion. And they were historically independent, both as Al-Andalus and pre-Roman Tartessos. But they never wanted to separate, not even when they were by far the richest region in Spain.

But where's the separatism? In the Basque country, with exactly the same blood, views on religion, Spanish accent, etc. than their neighbouring regions, and no history of independence. Some of them do speak Basque "dialects"; but the vast majority can't.

The hidden factor behind nationalisms in Spain, Northern Italy, Bavaria and possibly others is "mass national immigration". When these regions industrialized and attracted workers from other areas in the nation, those immigrating were the poorest, least educated and, because of their position, the most prone to crime in their region.

Locals' view of their "large" nation started to change from a proud one, to a vision of poverty and crime, and racial (Basque)/cultural (Catalan) justifications of locals' superiority were created. The evil seed of nationalism was sown.

That's just my two cents.

Mark A. Sadowski said...

I've been reflecting on what Diego said about the author's presumption that these independent states would be republics. The SNP has no official position on what an independent Scotland should be but it is indicative that Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland (and leader of the SNP), believes that the current monarch should be retained and consequently Scotland would become a member of the Commonwealth much like Australia or Canada. Support for the creation of a republic seems to come primarily from the much smaller Scottish Socialist Party (SSP). There are even Scottish nationalists who are Jacobites (as I am inclined and most of the founders of the SNP were). Consequently they would make Franz, Duke of Bavaria (consequently, interestingly, the heir to the Bavarian throne) King of Scotland. Since he is childless, upon his death his niece Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechenstein would become Queen of Scotland.

The SNP is committed to holding a referendum on independence by 2010. If the outcome is favorable, which is a distinct possibility, there are legal hurdles that would still have to be overcome (Westminster would probably have to be willing). But if Scotland should become independent I suspect that she would retain the current monarch (sorry Franz) and become a member of the Commonwealth rather than become a republic.

Mark A. Sadowski said...

Incidentally the SSP lost all of its seats in the Scottish Parliament in the 2007 elections. This was mainly due to the creation of Solidarity, a party that split of from the SSP in 2006 and that consequently holds very similar views. The only political party, other than the SNP, with seats in the Scottish Parliament that favors independence is the Scottish Green Party (SGP). They only have 2 out of the 129 seats and presumably they also favor the creation of a republic.

So, as you can see, the Scottish independence movement is currently heavily dominated by the essentially (although not officially) pro-monarchist SNP that, with 47 seats, holds a plurality of the seats and forms the minority government.

P.S. The Liberal Democrats hold 16 seats in the Scottish Parliament. Although they do not favor independence they do favor greater federalism within the UK. So a clear majority of the MSPs favor increased Scottish autonomy of some kind.

Diego said...

What if future Europe has fewer countries, instead of more micro-states?

A survey published yesterday stated 40% of Portuguese and 30% of Spanish want Spain and Portugal to merge into a single federation (maybe "Iberia"?).

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/idea/union/iberica/gana/terreno/elpepiint/20090729elpepiint_1/Tes

I personally don't know what to make out of this... but those figures are higher than support for independence in any European region!

reading said...

The different information of the of the European countries...that is very nice...i love it..
language courses madrid

reading said...

Great article that is really provide the information regarding the history of Europe maps..

spanish school spain

JD said...

Interesting discussion here, but I think that there are so many varying degrees here.

I would classify them as SERIOUS--Scotland, Flanders, Padonia; PIPE DREAMS--Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemburg, Sardinia, and the two French provinces, Britagne and Normandie; and EXCUSES FOR CRIMINALITY--Basqueland and Corsica, where separatist movements are simply claims of moral authority for organized crime like extortion and kidnapping.

Two more things: after all of the effort to unify Germany over the last 200 years, I can't see any republics breaking away from the Fatherland.

Also, considering the economic problems, does it really make sense for the Scots to break away? Perhaps the Euro might help currency-wise, but it would seem to me that larger is better.

Chachy said...

Hey, my first spam commenter - I've come of age!

JD - I wonder of it would make sense for the Scots to think they'd benefit more from EU contributions as an independent entity than from contributions from Great Britain's government as a sub-national region. I can't say for sure myself, nor can I say how much this sort of cold self-interest even figures in Scottish nationalism; but to hear Mark Sadowski tell it, a sense that the EU would be able to support them as an independent country is not irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

As an Englishman I look forward to Scottish independence. However, they should be made to take their cousins in Northern Ireland with them! It would be grossly unfair to burden the English (and Welsh) with subsidising a portion of Ireland populated by hate-filled sectarian Scots!

Anonymous said...

I am Breton and Norman ancestry and one thing is sure there is NO separatist mouvement in Normandy ! People from there are actually very proud to be French traditionally. Britany has one but they want more decentralisation than independance and most of the Breton people don't agree with them. Padania in Italy has never been independant actualy and are already divided between different languages

viagra online said...

Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria are the richest of Germany and the rest of the population are starving not only shows that map also social territorial limits

generic viagra said...

Hi guys the work you are doing with this site is excellent,it caught my eye,I think the site is full of good and interesting notes about "The Coming European Crack-Up?"

Anonymous said...

I think there is one huge misunderstanding about the "historical entities" giving foundation to current states: There is no big difference between "new nations" and "historical nations". Why? Because historical kingdoms were NOT nation states. Nation state is a product of late 19th century, coming together with overall liberalization and industrialization process that was taking place moreorless in whole Europe. Successful emergence of a nation state heavily depended on the political situation in each monarchy - some nations had better starting conditions for creating a nation state, others less favourable. The point of the original argument is that each nation usually identifies with a historical entity, although it is rather a case of historical romantism. Even the "linguistic affiliation" of the ruling monarchistic dynasties is vastly irrelevant, creating, for example, no link between Austrian and Castillian nation via the Habsburg dynasty. Even less important is the exact historical area of the state, which changed heavily with each new war, resulting in some countries moving back and forth, like in the case of Poland which was eventually called "State on wheels" (to quote W. Churchill).

I would argue that the most important factor of a successful secessionist movement (in european context) is
1) different language or religion
2) oppression or fundamental political inconsensus (Monarchy vs Republic vs Communism etc.)
3) economic feasibility
4) territorial and political feasibility
Different language is a clear point, and do not forget difference between language and dialect. Case of Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Flanders, Basque Country, Catalan Countries, Saami (Lapps), probably case of some German Bundeslands (German is family of very distinct dialects and the "standard german" being only one of them), we might probably mention split of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and breakdown of USSR. Different heading may be case of Catalans (republican vs monarchy), but even more Yugoslavia (liberal vs conservative centralist communist regime), Austria-Hungary (modern republics vs traditionalist centralist monarchy) and very much the breakdown of USSR. Economic feasibility is no more very important in EU, as there is single european market. Defensibility is also moreorless assured by international organizations, in this case it would probably be assured by EU and NATO. EU would be pretty much excellent platform for self-determination of nations, while protecting laws in the secceeded countries not to turn against the original centralist nation. Old multinational countries will IMHO naturally fiercely resist secessionism, but steadily lose democratic legitimity of doing so, for instance if there is a successful separatist referendum. Less obvious would be extent of the seceded territory, like in the case of Comunidad de Valencia (Comunitat de val`encia), where one part of the population identifies as Spanish nation, part with pan-Catalan nation and part with Valencian nation distinct from Catalans (although Valencian is a dialect of Catalan or vice versa). One who decide which people will be asked in the referendum may significantly influence the results. And it is also very important to distinguish between secession of a stateless nation and irredentism, where nations self-determination is used as a political excuse for redrawing borders between existing nation states.

Looking at Diego's Spanglish like "re-poblate", please take no offense, I understand why is he desperately seeking any argument to defense integrity of Spain and oppose secession of Basque country. I do not, however, understand why do he go so far to consider secessionism itself an evil criminal act, which it is not, unless the separatist movements use criminal methods. But we already know that secession may come without violence.

Have nice day, people.

Diego said...

Anonymous 9:03,

I couldn't care less whether the Basque country, Flanders, Catalonia, etc. get independent or not.

I just happen to think nationalism is bad. It's an ideological construct that blinds people, makes them discriminate against "the Others", makes them think they are better than anybody else and puts the political focus on very unimportant things.

tn requin said...

sleeping bag
tablecloth
travel luggage
car gps
car parts
GPS navigation
portable GPS
lcd tv
flat tv
digital picture frames
unlocked cell phones
wedding dresses
wedding jewelry
chaussures mode
chaussures Femmes
women's shoes
round tablecloth
discount handbags
chaussures sport
chaussures pas cher
fashion bedding
id lanyard
lanyard
creative gadgets
gift ideas
kids wall stickers
wall stickers
bath curtains
kitchen faucet
bathroom faucet

Anonymous said...

Sadowski, yup that sounds really really Scottish (Gallic). Since you seem to have no problem throwing racist expressions around Sadowski "white settlers" aka English from a Sadowski equals a lot of bullshit. This little ditty is from a Canadian Scot a Baird of the Highland clan Mc Baird

Anonymous said...

Sounds awesome Europe wants to re Balkanize. Lets get this straight Germany breaks up into 20 or 30 little fifedoms, The Celts go haggus and get their independance all 50 of them, France and Italy crack up into a couple of hundred little piss ant duchy's, the vikings retake northern France eastern England, shit sounds great, considering most European women are barren and to lazy to have children, most of Europe will be empty in a century or so if they keep poppin their birth control pills or aborting as a past time. Might as well just hand it all over to the "peacefully" muslims , shove sharia laws up the arses of the few remaining native Europeans and the natives that are not sterile can always get female circumcism ala Islam

dfadf said...

graidMicrosoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

berita terbaru said...

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed reading your blog posts. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon
point blank
Biro Jodoh Online Gratis
Ramalan Bintang Zodiak Terbaru
Ramalan Shio Zodiak Tionghoa
Kumpulan Contoh Naskah Pidato
Cara daftar point blank
Point Blank Online Indonesia
Kata-kata Bijak dan Motivasi
Koleksi Status Keren Facebook
mobile phone
my cupu
Harga Spesifikasi HP
Kumpulan berita terbaru

Height Increasing Tips - Get Your Optimum Results said...

nice posting..

How To Get A Taller - Get You Optimum Results in Weeks
Exercises To Get Taller – Grow Taller Fast
Natural Ways To Get Taller - 100% Naturally
How To Look Tall - Tips On How You Can look Tall 2-3 inches Now!

Penis Enlargement Pills said...

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I think I will leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
http://www.factspenisenlargement.com

Anonymous said...

Uncover elsewhere how with the purpose reverse phone lookup do a transpose telephone search or else a telephone search or else yet a cell phone number search search that hit upon away from home who is losing to facilitate character to has been calling you this full point ok.

Anonymous said...

I enjoy this nice annul cellular phone search before mobile phone lookup before mobile phone number search spot. I be capable of be taught a skillful deal of cell phone lookup matter on the area of turn around mobile phone search here these days whilst I checked away this guide here.

consejo comprar yate said...

Really helpful information, lots of thanks for your post.

posicionamiento web en buscadores said...

Hey, there's so much useful material above!

terry said...

I suppose that modern cartography is closely integrated with geographic information science (GIScience) and constitutes many theoretical and practical foundations of geographic information systems.
cheap essay writing services