The EU is nothing short of committing treason against the native European people.
Those who committed treason and continue to do so will wishfully one day stand at a Nuremberg trial.
By Fjordman in
EuropeNews.The EU does not protect the peace in Europe. On the contrary, it undermines stability in the continent by dismantling border controls at a time of the greatest population movements in
human history, with many migrants coming from politically unstable countries whose instability spills over to European states. Through its senseless immigration policies, the EU could become partly responsible for triggering civil wars in several European countries. Maybe it will be remembered as the "peace project" which brought war to Europe, again.
The European Union has created a borderless region from Greece to France and from Portugal to Finland, yet the citizens of these countries still pay most of their taxes to nation states whose borders are no longer upheld. It is ridiculous to pay up to half of your income to an entity that no longer controls its own territory or legislation. Unless national borders are re-established, the citizens of EU member states no longer have any obligation to pay taxes at all.
The EU promotes a ridiculous amount of laws and regulations, yet street crime largely goes unpunished. Laws are used to punish the law-abiding while real criminals rule the streets, although this flaw is admittedly shared with many national governments. European authorities make a mockery out of the social contract every single day as they fail to uphold law and order.
Unless the relevant authorities improve their efforts against crime drastically, we can expect to see normal European citizens acquire arms for their own protection in rapidly increasing numbers.
One can't blame them, for in several countries, like the UK, Sweden or the Netherlands, the authorities are more concerned with enforcing speech codes and Political Correctness than with dealing with criminals in a forceful way. We need confidence in our police force or we will have to find other means to protect our lives and property.
The EU does not give Europeans a "voice" on the international arena. It's a bureaucratic monster at best, a dangerous Utopian project at worst. It makes our enemies take us less seriously, not more. It is not about giving anybody a voice; it is about silencing the voices we already have, by depriving us of any say regarding our future and the destinies of our peoples.
Joschka Fischer, ex-German foreign minister, warns that Europe risks becoming a "playground" for upcoming superpowers in the 21st century. He wants more EU cooperation to remedy this. But we already are a playground for foreign nations, for Muslim ones in particular, who can dump their unsustainable population growth in our countries. This is actively encouraged by the EU. It is going to be interesting for future historians to unveil how many European leaders and officials have been bought and paid for by Saudi oil money.
The idea that the EU is going to become a superpower is laughable. Europe at the dawn of the 21st century is a global joke, a decadent and weak continent, despised by its enemies and viewed with pity by its friends. Outsiders don't expect Europe to generate anything new, quite a few will be surprised if it even survives. This image will not be improved by leaders who attack their own people, sell out their historical legacy to their worst enemies and muzzle those who object to this. It is ridiculous to believe that this ramshackle, top-heavy Frankenstein monster is going to make Europe more competitive.
2) The EU Weakens Europe's Cultural Defenses
The EU is systematically surrendering the continent to our worst enemies. When French, Dutch and Irish voters rejected the EU Constitution, the EU elites moved on as if nothing had happened. When the Islamic world says that the EU should work to eradicate "Islamophobia," they immediately consent to do this. When an organization ignores the interests of its own people yet implements the interests of that people's enemies, that organization has become an actively hostile entity run by a corrupt class of abject traitors. This is what the EU is today.
Those inhabiting the European continent are first and foremost Germans, Poles, Italians, Hungarians, Portuguese etc. "Europe" has existed mainly to protect the continent against Islamic expansionism. Charles Martel created Europe in the modern sense when he defeated the Arab invasion in the seventh century, aided by people such as Pelayo, who started the Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula, John Hunyadi and Lazar of Serbia who fought against the Turks in the Balkans and John III Sobieski, King of Poland, who beat the Ottomans during the 1683 Battle of Vienna. The EU is actively working to undo everything Charles Martel and these men achieved. This makes it the anti-European Union.
Immigrants are a "protected class" for Multiculturalists, who need them as a battering ram to destroy existing identities and forge a new "pan-European" identity (and eventually a "global identity," I suspect). I found this quote in the magazine Signandsight.som from June 2008. Journalist Arno Widmann witnessed a meeting between Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and theorist Jürgen Habermas. Widmann was extremely impressed by Ramadan:
The Irish are first and foremost Irish, the Danish are Danish, the Germans Germans and the Belgians are primarily Flemish or Walloon. Immigrants who are prevented from becoming Irish, Danes and Germans but who are called upon to be more European that Europeans ever were, have no option other than to become Europeans. They will be the first true Europeans. No Europe without Muslims [emphasis in the original].
The EU is deliberately destroying the cultural traditions of member states by flooding them with immigrants and eradicating native traditions. This is a gross violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples across an entire continent. Europe has some of the richest cultural traditions on the planet. To replace this with sharia barbarism is a crime against humanity. The European Union is currently the principal (though not the only) motor behind the Islamization of Europe, perhaps the greatest betrayal in this civilization's history. Appeasement of Islam and Muslims is so deeply immersed into the structural DNA of the EU that the only way to stop the Islamization of the continent is to get rid of the EU. All of it.
3) The EU Promotes a Bloated Bureaucracy
A study released by the organization Open Europe in August 2008 found that the EU employs an "army" of bureaucrats, and that the actual number of individuals required to run the EU is close to 170,000 — more than 7 times the 23,000 figure sometimes cited by the Commission.
According to them,
The legislative process of the EU is an extremely complex and opaque system, making it very difficult to identify how many people are actually involved in formulating, implementing and overseeing legislation. However, research by Open Europe, using limited available information, shows that just to draft and work out how to implement legislation the EU requires a bureaucratic staff of around 62,026 people.
This figure reveals where the EU's real legislative work is actually done: in committees, behind closed doors and out of the public eye. Most of the work takes place away from the core institutions within Expert Groups, Council Groups, and what are known as Comitology committees.
Notice how this closed and secretive process of drafting legislation for half a billion people resembles that of a dictatorship. The EU follows a strategy of hide in plain sight and conceals the real power behind layers of bureaucratic complexities. This strategy was also followed with the drafting of the ridiculously long European Constitution.
If somebody presented you with a contract of hundreds of pages of more or less incomprehensible technical language which was to govern all aspects of your life and that of your children and grandchildren, and that person told you to just take his word for it that it is good and could you please sign on the dotted line, would you have accepted it? That is essentially what the EU has done regarding the fate of an entire continent, not just a single family. When some annoying people, such as the Dutch and the Irish, were unkind enough not to consent blindly to their new serfdom, the EU decided that they were bound by the contract they just rejected, anyway. It's arrogance on a monumental scale, if not plain treason.
The EU is not yet a true, totalitarian entity, but it already holds most of the tools required in order to become one. It has managed to corrupt the national elites to sell out the freedom of their peoples by inviting them to take part in the world's largest racket, paid for by European taxpayers. The growing pan-European nanny state now interferes with every aspect of social and economic life, governed by an unaccountable, arrogant and often hostile minority of social engineers who wish to impose their way of thinking on the majority.
4) Excessive Regulation and Centralization is bad for Freedom and for Prosperity
Europe once became a dynamic continent thanks to competition at all levels. It is now virtually impossible to find a sector of society that is untouched by the often excessive EU regulations. The EU functions as a huge superstate centrally directed by statists obsessed by regulations. They have learnt little from history, where central planning has been an almost universal failure. Here is what Nathan Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell Jr. say in How The West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World:
Initially, the West's achievement of autonomy stemmed from a relaxation, or a weakening, of political and religious controls, giving other departments of social life the opportunity to experiment with change. Growth is, of course, a form of change, and growth is impossible when change is not permitted.
Any successful change requires a large measure of freedom to experiment. A grant of that kind of freedom costs a society's rulers their feeling of control, as if they were conceding to others the power to determine the society's future. The great majority of societies, past and present, have not allowed it. Nor have they escaped from poverty.
Moreover, "Western technology developed in the special context of a high degree of autonomy among the political, religious, scientific, and economic spheres of social life. Is this high degree of autonomy indispensable to the successful application of technology to economic welfare? Few Western scientists would disagree with the proposition that a high degree of autonomy of the scientific sphere from political or religious control is essential to scientific advance. It is almost as clear that a similar autonomy, in much the same degree, is essential to the economic process of translating scientific advances into goods and services. The technological capability of a society is bound to be degraded if control of either scientific inquiry or innovation is located at points of political or religious authority that combine an interest in controlling the outcome of technological development with the power to restrict or direct experiment. In all well-ordered societies, political authority is dedicated to stability, security, and the status quo. It is thus singularly ill-qualified to direct or channel activity intended to produce instability, insecurity, and change."
The European Union cannot be anything but anti-liberty because it concentrates far too much power in a centralized bureaucratic system that is almost impossible for outsiders to understand. As the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek warned in The Road to Serfdom:
To imagine that the economic life of a vast area comprising many different people can be directed or planned by democratic procedure betrays a complete lack of awareness of the problems such planning would raise. Planning on an international scale, even more than is true on a national scale, cannot be anything but a naked rule of force, an imposition by a small group on all the rest of that sort of standard and employment which the planners think suitable for the rest.
5) The Lack of a Real Separation of Powers in the EU Invites Abuse of Power
The pompous former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing declared that the creation of the EU Constitution was Europe's "Philadelphia moment," alluding to the Philadelphia Convention or Constitutional Convention in the newly formed the United States of America in 1787. The USA has its flaws, but if Mr. Giscard d'Estaing had actually understood the American Constitution, he would have discovered that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others took great care to implement checks and balances in their new state. This is sorely lacking in the EU. The American constitution is relatively short and understandable whereas the EU Constitution is hundreds of pages long, largely incomprehensible and displays an almost sharia-like desire to regulate all aspects of human life.
Madison, Jefferson, George Washington and the American Founding Fathers acted in the open and were generally elected by their peers. Contrast this with Jean Monnet, who is credited with having laid the foundations of the EU despite the fact that most EU citizens today haven't heard of him. He was never elected to any public office, but worked behind the scenes to implement a secret agenda. I read an interview with a senior Brussels lobbyist who dubbed Monnet "the most successful lobbyist in history." To this day, the EU capital of Brussels is dominated by lobbyists. Washington D.C. has its fair share of lobbyists, too, and this can be problematic at times. You can make a good case for claiming that the American system is in trouble and no longer works as it was intended to in the early twenty-first century. Nevertheless, the difference is that the EU capital is dominated only by lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats, with very little real popular influence.
We should study the work of the great eighteenth century French thinker Montesquieu, who admired the British political system. He advocated that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government should be assigned to different bodies, where each of them would not be powerful enough to impose its will on society. This is because "constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go." This separation of powers is almost totally absent in the European Union, where there is weak to non-existent separation between the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches, and where all of them function without the consent of the public. In short, a small number of people can draft and implement laws without consulting the people, and these take precedence over the laws passed by elected assemblies. This is a blueprint for a dictatorship.
In 2006, the European Commission (the EU's government) announced that it would send its proposals for EU laws to national parliaments for comment - but it made clear that Brussels would only "take note" of national parliamentarians' wishes. The European Union's concept of "consultation" is that the people or their representatives should give their "advice," and then the EU's leaders should be free to ignore this advice.
In 2007, former German president Roman Herzog warned that parliamentary democracy was under threat from the EU. Between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany — and the majority in all EU member states — stemmed from Brussels. According to Herzog, "EU policies suffer to an alarming degree from a lack of democracy and a de facto suspension of the separation of powers." Despite this, the EU was largely a non-issue during the 2005 German elections. One gets the feeling that the real issues of substance are not subject to public debate. National elections have become an increasingly empty ritual. The important issues have already been settled beforehand behind closed doors.
Free citizens should obey laws that are passed with the best long-term interests of their nation and people in mind. Most of the laws within the EU's area are no longer passed by elected national representatives, but by unaccountable EU bureaucrats, some of whom could potentially have been bought and paid by our Islamic enemies with Arab oil money. As such, the citizens of these nations no longer have any obligation to obey these laws.
As Montesquieu warned, "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner." He also stated that "Useless laws weaken the necessary laws." The current problem with the EU is not just the content of laws and the way they are drafted and passed, but also their sheer volume. Law-abiding citizens are turned into criminals by laws regulating speech and behavior, while real criminals rule the streets in our cities. This situation will either lead to a police state, to a total breakdown in law and order, or both.
6) The Lack of Transparency Leaves the EU Vulnerable to Hostile Infiltration
There will no doubt be debates among future historians about how EU leaders could do something as stupid as the creation of the Eurabian networks. I suspect one of the answers will be: They did it because they could. I have heard some Socialists argue that the Communist system of the Soviet Union could have worked if it didn't end up with a leader like Stalin. This view is fundamentally flawed, for the system itself invited a Stalin, or a Mao; there were no real restraints on the power of the rulers. As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The same goes for the EU.
At least two conditions must be fulfilled in order to prevent the arbitrary use of power. The first is a system of formal and informal checks and balances, giving the possibility of peacefully removing officials who are not doing their job. The second is transparency, so people know what their representatives are doing. The EU deliberately ignores both these conditions. Vast quantities of power have been transferred to shady backrooms and structures the average citizen hardly knows exist. Eurabia was created through such channels. The reason why European leaders could commit a betrayal as large as this was not only because EU authorities are not formally subjected to the popular will, but because they have made the decision-making process incredibly complicated and moved real power out of the public view.
There is every reason to believe that some of those claiming to be our representatives have been bribed and/or blackmailed by Muslim countries and other enemies to implement agendas hostile to our interests. No system is perfect, but a non-transparent system such as the EU is particularly vulnerable to infiltration from outsiders and hostile foreign interests.
The "anti-discrimination laws" we now see in Western Europe are an indication that the democratic system no longer works as intended. These laws come from a small group of self-appointed leaders who respond to pressure from the Islamic world, not from their own people. The European political elites increasingly risk being seen as collaborators and puppets for our enemies because that's in many cases how they act.
7) The EU Leads to Less Freedom of Speech
The EU does nothing to promote freedom in Europe, but rather spends a great deal of time trying to stamp out what's left of it. The EU, in cooperation with Islamic countries, is rewriting school textbooks across the European continent to present a more "positive" image of Islam. The EU increasingly views the media and the education system simply as a prolonged arm of the state. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian state, which is what the EUSSR is gradually becoming. One gets the feeling that the EU's concept of a "united Europe" means one nation, one people — and one allowed opinion. It is tempting to say one allowed religion as well: Islam.
According to British writer Daniel Hannan,
Eurocrats instinctively dislike spontaneous activity. To them, 'unregulated' is almost synonymous with 'illegal'. The bureaucratic mindset demands uniformity, licensing, order. Eurocrats are especially upset because many bloggers, being of an anarchic disposition, are anti-Brussels. In the French, Dutch and Irish referendums, the MSM [mainstream media] were uniformly pro-treaty, whereas internet activity was overwhelmingly sceptical. Bruno Waterfield recently reported on a secret Commission report about the danger posed by online libertarians: 'Apart from official websites, the internet has largely been a space left to anti-European feeling. Given the ability to reach an audience at a much lower cost, and given the simplicity of the No campaign messages, it has proven to be easily malleable during the campaign and pre-campaign period.' The EU's solution? Why, to regulate blogs!
At the time of writing, it looks like the most radical proposals to regulate independent websites have been watered down, but there is no doubt that the EU will make new attempts to censor the Internet, especially since the organization has successfully bribed much of the traditional media. In 2007, the EU agreed to make incitement to racism and xenophobia a crime across the 27-nation bloc.
Under the new law, offenders will face up to three years in jail for "public incitement to violence or hatred, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin." The term "inciting hatred" against "religion" will no doubt be used to silence critics of Islam, of the EU's pro-Islamic policies and of mass immigration in general.
Every single action the EU has taken vis-à-vis these subjects have led to more restrictions of free speech, online and offline. There is no reason not to expect that trend to continue, especially since the EU tries consistently to placate Muslims and other immigrant groups in every way possible. The EU's attempts to crush dissent and silence criticism of its ideas will become increasingly aggressive and hard to ignore.
8) The EU Fails to Consult its Citizens and Insults Them When Doing So
The Irish referendum in 2008 on the proposed EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty is a powerful testimony to the evil nature of the European Union. Before the referendum, a number of EU leaders made it perfectly clear that the Lisbon Treaty was virtually identical to the European Constitution which had been rejected by Dutch and French voters in 2005, and which should then presumably have been dead.
Former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (the chief drafter of the Constitution) said:
the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary.
D'Estaing also said:
Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly… All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.
Spanish PM José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero said: "We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go…" Italian President Giorgio Napolitano said: "Those who are anti-EU are terrorists. It is psychological terrorism to suggest the specter of a European superstate."
Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen admitted that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty in full, but nonetheless assured his people that it was good and that Irishmen should vote "yes" based on this assurance. He said that voters were being asked to give the EU a "more effective and efficient decision-making process."
If a dictator decides to ignore the opinion of everybody else and implement policies as he sees fit without consulting anybody, this could be seen as a "more efficient" decision-making process from a certain point of view. Is it this kind of "efficiency" the EU is promoting? Mr. Cowen doesn't say, but it's tempting to speculate that the answer is "yes." According to the words and actions of the EU elites, the will of the people is merely an annoying speed bump which slows down the implementation of their supremely enlightened policies.
After the referendum, when it was clear that the Irish would have none of this trick, the Irish EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy revealed that he had not read the Lisbon Treaty himself: "I would predict that there won't be 250 people in the whole of the 4.2 million population of Ireland that have read the treaties cover-to-cover. I further predict that there is not 10 percent of that 250 that will understand every section and subsection," he said. "But is there anything different about that?" said the Commissioner, adding: "Does anyone read the finance act?" referring to the lengthy documents he drew up when he was finance minister in Ireland.
Let us repeat this again. This man stated — probably correctly — that not more than a couple of dozen people among millions of citizens actually understood the document they were supposed to vote over, yet he saw nothing inherently wrong with this. The EU Constitution/ Lisbon Treaty would finalize the transfer of authority to a new pan-European superstate with almost unlimited powers to direct the affairs and lives of half a billion people in dozens of countries, from Finland to France and from Ireland to Poland. The Irish responded in the only sensible manner, but European leaders made it perfectly clear that they would press on with the project of dismantling European nation states regardless of popular resistance.
French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel issued a joint statement saying they "hope that the other member states will continue the process of ratification." The German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said: "The ratification process must continue. I am still convinced that we need this treaty." The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK would press on with ratification: "It's right that we continue with our own process."
The President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering stated: "The ratification process must continue" because "the reform of the European Union is important for citizens, for democracy and for transparency." In other words: The reason the EU is tossing aside the verdict of the Irish people, as well as the French and Dutch people and numerous others who never got the chance to voice their opinion at all, is for "democracy."
According to writer Martin Helme, it was always clear that the power elites were not going to accept an Irish "no." After the first shock they would simply continue carrying out plan A:
One of the most disgusting and outrageous talking points already being peddled by the Eurocrats and their friends in the liberal mainstream media is that 862,415 Irish voters have no right to block the desired goal of some 450 million Europeans.
This distortion of truth should never go unchallenged. First of all, those few million Irish were actually the only citizens in Europe who were asked for their opinion. The rest of the 446 or so millions were never consulted. How can any politician claim that their voters want the ratification of EU constitution/Lisbon Treaty when the entire political class emphatically insisted on not asking the people? In fact, in many countries politicians openly admit that their voters would have done the same as Irish did, i.e. vote against the rotten thing.
So it is not the few million Irish voters blocking the will of hundreds of millions of other European voters but very clearly a mass of Irish voters against a few thousand politicians and bureaucrats who make up the European power elite. Secondly, what happened to those 20 million French and Dutch voters who said no to the same document three years ago?
The European Commission in April 2008 presented a new plan aimed at increasing EU citizens' involvement in the decision-making process of the 27-nation bloc, as well as making it more popular. "We must consult citizens," said the Swedish Commissioner Margot Wallström then. She is famous for her remark in 2005 that Europeans needed to approve of the proposed EU constitution or risk a new Holocaust. Three years after the Constitution was first rejected, and still with no Holocaust in sight, the EU no longer pretends to care about the will of the people. When Eurocrats talk about "consulting" citizens, they mean insulting them.
In April 2008, a demonstration comprising people from all walks of life and from most political parties convened in front of the famous and beautiful Staatsoper (State Opera) in the center of Vienna to demonstrate against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the Austrian Parliament, which later occurred without holding a referendum. Opinion polls showed that a majority of Austrians were convinced, as they should be, that policy is determined almost exclusively by Brussels. They see local politicians as largely deprived of any power, and many of them were reluctant to grant even more power to the unaccountable EU.
Opinion polls from mid-2008 showed that a strong majority of the Dutch were still against the Lisbon Treaty, which is virtually identical to the Constitution that Dutch voters rejected by 62 to 38 percent in the 2005 referendum. Nevertheless, the Netherlands is going ahead with the ratification of the Treaty even after the Irish rejected it, said Premier Jan Peter Balkenende. The political elites are determined to continue a process which will essentially dismantle their country and reduce it to just another province in an emerging Eurabian superstate, and openly ignore their own people in order to implement this.
As Helme states,
Governments have willfully and knowingly gone against the will of the people, trashed their own constitutions, corrupted their courts to go along with it (thus trashing the rule of law) and started to govern without the consent of the people or the rule of law….This is the path that leads to revolution. Good! As Thomas Jefferson said 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.' I have a feeling that more and more people around Europe are ready for it. How about the politicians?
9) The EU Undermines Political Legitimacy and Connections between Rulers and the Ruled
Proponents of the European Union claim that it is a "peace project." But the EU is not about peace, it is about war: A demographic and cultural war waged against an entire continent, from the Black Sea to the North Sea, in order to destroy European nation states and build an empire run by self-appointed bureaucrats. This is supported by national politicians in order to enhance their personal power, by creating a larger political entity than their individual nation states and by ridding themselves of the constraints of a democratic society. The EU corrupts national political elites into betraying the people they are supposed to serve and protect.
The EU is increasingly dictatorial, but it is a stealth dictatorship whose most dangerous aspects are largely invisible in everyday life. What the average person sees is that it makes it easier for him to travel to other countries without a passport, and use the same Euro currency from Arctic Lapland in Finland to Spain's Canary Islands off the African coast. This appears convenient, and on some level it is.
But it comes at the price of hollowing out the power of national institutions and placing it into the hands of an unelected oligarchy conspiring to usurp ever more power and rearrange the lives of half a billion people. That's a steep price to pay for a common currency. But people do not clearly see this is their daily lives, and seeing is believing. The enemy that clearly identifies himself as such is sometimes less dangerous than the enemy who is diffused and vague, since you cannot easily mobilize against him.
The insightful British philosopher Roger Scruton in his excellent little book The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat, some of which is available online for free, warns that the gradual transfer of legislative powers to "international law" embodied in organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union undermines the traditional system of law in Western nations. The ideology and project of Globalism (Scruton does not use this term, but I do) – for it is a deliberate project, make no mistake about it – is presented to Western citizens as an "inevitable" process. Those disagreeing with this are evil racist or ignorant bigots standing against the tide of history. As Scruton says:
We have reached the stage where our national jurisdiction is bombarded by laws from outside...even though many of them originate in despotic or criminal governments, and even though hardly any of them are concerned with the maintenance of peace. Even so we, the citizens, are powerless to reject these laws, and they, the legislators, are entirely unanswerable to us, who must obey them....
The despotism is coming slowly: the anarchy will happen quickly in its wake, when law is finally detached from the experience of membership, becomes 'theirs' but not 'ours' and so loses all authority in the hearts of those whom it presumes to discipline….our political elites speak and behave as though there were no such choice to be made – just as the communists did at the time of the Russian Revolution.
They refer to an inevitable process, to irreversible changes, and while at times prepared to distinguish a 'fast' from a 'slow' track into the future, are clear in their minds that these two tracks lead to a single destination – the destination of transnational government, under a common system of law, in which national loyalty will be no more significant than support for a local football team.
Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, states the following in an essay at the EU Observer:
At a national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country.
Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does.
National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.
EU ministers see themselves as architects of a superpower in the making, and can free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments. According to Coughlan, EU integration represents "a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them." This process sucks the reality of power from "traditional government institutions, while leaving these still formally intact. They still keep their old names — parliament, government, supreme court — so that their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed."
The European Union is basically an attempt by the elites in European nations to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and abolishing the democratic system, a slow-motion coup d'état. Ideas such as "promoting peace" or "promoting free trade" are used as a pretext for this, a bone thrown to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab.
The European Union is deeply flawed in its basic construction and cannot function as anything other than an increasingly totalitarian pan-European dictatorship, run by a self-appointed oligarchy. Indeed, there is reason to fear that it was designed that way. Power is concentrated heavily in institutions that are above the formal restraints of public consent and above the informal restraints of public scrutiny and insight. EU authorities can do more or less whatever they want to, as they do in relations to the Arab and Islamic world.
10) The EU Spreads a Culture of Lies and Corruption
In 2005 (and again in 2006), the EU's financial watchdog refused to approve the EU's accounts for the 11th year in a row because they were so full of fraud. The European Court of Auditors refused to give a statement of assurance on the EU's $160.3 billion budget for 2004. "The vast majority of the payment budget was again materially affected by errors of legality and regularity," it said. It specifically refused to approve the budgets for the EU's foreign policy and financial aid programs, many of which are geared towards Arab countries. Half of the project budgets approved by the European Commission were inadequately monitored.
The European Commission, frequently diffused through a complicated web of innocent-sounding organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them as federal EU policy. This is accomplished because billions of Euros are floating around in a system with little outside control, and with a few powerful individuals and groups pulling the strings.
Native Europeans are in effect financing their continent's merger with, in reality colonization by, the Islamic world without their knowledge and without their consent. It must be the first time in human history that an entire continent is being culturally eradicated with bureaucratic precision. This represents perhaps the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization, yet is largely ignored by the mainstream media in most Western nations.
After Irish voters had clearly rejected the Lisbon Treaty (the slightly changed, but otherwise recycled version of the European Constitution which had been rejected by French and Dutch voters earlier), Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark said Ireland should be given less than nine months to work out its problems with the Lisbon Treaty prior to the EU's parliamentary elections in 2009.
Rasmussen said that the Irish "no" vote to the Constitution should not stop further work by the Union toward getting the treaty ratified. European leaders, including Danish ones, have generally preferred ratification of the EU Constitution without popular referendums because they know there is powerful resistance to it in many countries. It is meaningless to have referendums if they only come when the elites want them to, and these elites can ignore them if they dislike the results.
Mr. Rasmussen is a great example of how the European Union slowly destroys the democratic system and is deliberately designed to do so. He is supposed to follow the will of and interests of his people, but his actual loyalty lies with the rest of the EU oligarchy. He's by no means the worst person among EU leaders; this isn't about his personal flaws, it's about the EU and how it eventually corrupts even otherwise decent individuals.
The EU is a slow-motion coup d'état conducted against dozens of countries simultaneously. It is designed to empty all organs subjected to the popular will of any real power and transfer it into the hands of an unelected oligarchy. In fact, it's worse than a coup d'état because this traditionally implied that a group of people seized control over a country. The EU doesn't just want to seize control over nation states; it wants to abolish them. The EU is organized treason.
The EU elites react as one when faced with challenges to their power base from ordinary people. Participants at every level of the system get well-paid jobs for taking part in it, which means that their pragmatic interests lie with maintaining it. Most of those who know the true nature of the EU have been bribed by the system and remain silent regarding its abuses because they personally benefit from it. Their loyalty has been bought — with the tax money of European citizens — and transferred from their people, where it theoretically should be, to the EU.
The EU is their pension plan. When you challenge the EU, you thus constitute a direct threat to their personal financial interests, and they will respond accordingly. The EU can bribe the national elites by appealing to their vanity and sense of importance, by elevating them from a national to an "international level" and by giving them nice cars and fancy jobs with power unrestrained by silly prosaic things such as the will of the people. Just like the Soviet Union, the European Union promotes a culture of lies and corruption which starts at the top and filters down to society as a whole.
Dutchman Derk-Jan Eppink, who has worked behind the scenes of the European Commission, sees a number of similarities between the European Union and the late Soviet Union. The EUSSR, just like the USSR, is administered by a self-appointed political elite from a single bureaucratic center. Its leaders profess belief in a Utopian state. The Soviet Union saw Socialist integration as an irreversible process. The European Union sees integration as a means for an "ever closer Union."
The Soviet Union claimed to act on behalf of a mythical worker. The European Union has its mythical citizen. Eppink concluded the comparison:
All in all, the Soviet Union lacked the self-correcting forces and the self-criticism which are proper to the democratic process. The European Union lacks these properties in the same way. By setting targets which are either too far away or unrealistic, you are undermining the legitimacy of the project and of the institutions which have to implement these policies. With this book, I want to warn for imperial overstretch and for the creation of expectations which are far-fetched and unrealistic. Sometimes I have the impression that the European Union is moving towards the same trap that finished the Soviet Union.
According to writer Christopher Booker,
when Richard North and I were writing a history of the European Union, trawling hundreds of books and thousands of documents, nothing struck us more than how consistently this grandiose project has been built on deceit as to its true nature (hence our title, The Great Deception). It is more than 60 years since one of its progenitors, Altiero Spinelli, wrote that its aim should be stealthily to assemble the components of a supranational government and only to declare its true purpose at the end of the process by unveiling a 'constitution'.
It is more than 50 years since another founder, Paul-Henri Spaak, advised Jean Monnet, who was above all 'the Father of Europe', that the only way to achieve their goal – a politically integrated Europe – was to pretend that it was only a 'Common Market'.
Danish EU-critic Henrik Ræder Clausen, who is behind the Europe News website, has reviewed the book The Great Deception by Christopher Booker and Richard North. In the early stages, Jean Monnet was seemingly always at the right place and with the right contacts. The first ideas for a European Union were born after the senseless destruction brought about during the First World War, but they were only implemented after the Second World War:
The initial ideas for the European Union stem from the period after WWI (not WWII), where the catastrophe just experienced had made a deep impression, and had seeded the ground for trying out new ideas. The League of Nations was one such idea, creating an intergovernmental body to deal with international conflicts, and hopefully to preserve the peace.
The various players, Monnet, Salter, and later Spinelli, drafted their first ideas immediately after WWI, in an effort to preclude a repeat of this, possibly the most meaningless war in history. Even the basic structure of the Union, modeled after the League of Nations, was drafted out at this early stage.
Monnet, who had been doing business and making contacts during WW2, resumed his efforts after the war. He eventually realized that there was little opportunity to make European citizens give up their nation states voluntarily, so in 1954 he changed his strategy. Instead of aiming directly for a supranational Union, Monnet and his allies opted for an Economic Community instead, which gradually evolved over several decades.
According to Clausen,
At this point (the Maastricht Treaty), we are faced with one of the most significant deceptions of the European Union project: It was sold to the European citizens as an economic community, not as a political union. By implementing the political union in small steps, and not making the final goal clear to the public except at a very late stage, the Community founders had pulled off one of the greatest deceptions in history, effectively decoupling the progress from democratic scrutiny and criticism. 1992 marks the end of the European Economic Community and the (troubled) birth of the European Union.
Is the European Union exclusively bad? There are two schools of thought: Those who believe that the EU represents an idea that was initially good but went awfully wrong somewhere along the way, and those who believe the EU was flawed from its very inception; most people just didn't see it for what it was. I am willing to listen to the arguments of both camps, but the lies by Mr. Monnet and others do indicate that the EU was steeped in lies and deception from the very first moment of its creation.
Either way, this question is by now of secondary importance. What matters at the moment is that the EU has become a monster which threatens the very continued existence of European civilization in any recognizable form.
I am not in any way suggesting that the EU is the only cause of the challenges we are now facing; merely that it constitutes our biggest problem, blocks the solution to other problems and adds several new ones. Political Correctness, suicidal Multiculturalism and Globalism rule the entire Western world, and the low birth rates we have among native Europeans are not caused by the EU. There is a new sense of European solidarity which can be useful in the future. It is quite possible that we could indeed benefit from some form of European cooperation in defense of a shared civilization, but not in the form of the EU as it exists today.
I would like to reform the EU if I could, but I fear that Vladimir Bukovsky is right and that it is the kind of structure which cannot be reformed. There is an incredible amount of frustration, fear and anger simmering among ordinary people across much of Western Europe which is artificially held down by the authorities and the media.
There is a possibility that there will be a counter-reaction once the EU is dismantled, but I don't think we have much of a choice in the present situation. I would liken it to having emergency surgery in order to save your life. If you have the choice between certain death now and possible complications later, you would normally choose possible complications later.
The European Union is not about cooperation for protecting the best interests of Europeans; it is about turning the entire continent into a Multicultural theme park while the natives get culturally deconstructed and demographically crushed. The EU is a large-scale social experiment conducted on hundreds of millions of people. It is not about economics of scale, it is about stupidity of scale. The EU system corrupts virtually everybody who comes close to it. It cannot be reformed, it can only be dismantled.
EUSSR is similar to the former USSR, the parliament, the Duma, the commission, the Politbureau, not surprisingly it is a nest of corruption and unelected rotten people wielding power and deciding over your life.
children. You may remember the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium. It could be called the most horrific example of child rape and murder in Europe since the war.
I decided to write this essay after a comment from a journalist, not a Leftist by my country’s standards, who dismissed Eurabia as merely a conspiracy theory, one on a par with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I do not disagree with the fact that conspiracy theories exist, nor that they can be dangerous. After all, the Protocols and the Dolchstosslegende, or “stab in the back myth” — the idea that Germany didn’t lose WW1 but was betrayed by Socialists, intellectuals and Jews — helped pave the way for Adolf Hitler and the Nazis before WW2.
Because of this, I am going to test whether the Eurabia thesis is correct, or at least plausible. I have called this project The Eurabia Code, alluding to author Dan Brown’s massive bestseller 
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Bat Ye’or explained how French President Charles de Gaulle, disappointed by the loss of the French colonies in Africa and the Middle East as well as with France’s waning influence in the international arena, decided in the 1960’s to create a strategic alliance with the Arab and Muslim world to compete with the dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.
Eurabia’s driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members — from all major European political parties — active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.
On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe’s foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.
Jean Monnet, French economist never elected to public office, is regarded by many as the architect of European integration. Monnet was a well-connected pragmatist who worked behind the scenes towards the gradual creation of European unity.
The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, widely presented as the beginning of the efforts towards a European Union and commemorated in “Europe Day,” contains phrases which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation.” However, as critics of the EU have noted, these political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people are unaware of their existence.
Booker and North call the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.
Walter Schwimmer, the Austrian diplomat and Secretary General of the Council of Europe from 1999 to 2004, told foreign ministers at the Islamic conference in Istanbul (June15th 2004) that the Islamic component is an integral part of Europe’s diversity. He reaffirmed the commitment of the Council of Europe to work against Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance.
Included among this group of Muslim Brotherhood intellectuals is Youssef al-Qaradhawi, an Egyptian-born, Qatar-based Islamist cleric. Both Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess provide extensive comparisons between Qaradhawi’s publication, Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, published in 1990, and The Project. They note the striking similarities in the language used and the plans and methods both documents advocate.
Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist who spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as an heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC’s 
She quotes follow writer from Poland Czesław Miłosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980 for books such as 
In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents, as described 
In May 2006, Mahmoud Abbas — President of the Palestinian Authority after Arafat’s death in November 2004 and a leading politician in Fatah — talked to the European Parliament about the peace process. At the same time, the al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, 
Caesar’s successor Octavian, better known today as Caesar Augustus, is considered both the first and one of the most important Roman Emperors. He downplayed his own position by preferring the title princeps, usually translated as “first citizen”. He also preserved the outward form of the Roman Republic, paid lip service to the old elite, and veiled the changes to make them seem less upsetting to the public. He may have been a monarch, but he never called himself one.
The problem is that the nation state itself has been declared evil or obsolete, not collectivism, anti-individualism or totalitarianism. But there is a crucial distinction between nationalism and patriotism, which George Orwell saw clearly:
