Saturday, January 19, 2008

Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union — A First Draft

The Fjordman Report

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

Hello from Fjordman.

No to the EUSSR!I intend to write a text called “Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union” This text will be written with me as editor and contributor, but not necessarily sole writer. I will post some ideas here which can be expanded upon by blog readers. I will then post a second, more elaborate draft, make some changes to that, and then post the final version. It is my intention that this text should be translated into major European languages and be republished or reprinted in various EU countries. If you post comments here, you thus give your permission to allow your writings to be incorporated into this text and republished elsewhere.

The 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 and unaccountable 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 thus corrupts national political elites into betraying the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, notes:

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 political architects of a superpower in the making. They can also 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 is now sucking 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 nation states 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 now suppressing free speech across Europe in the name of Multiculturalism and tolerance. Free speech is the hallmark of freedom. When the EU is suppressing free speech, it is repressing freedom itself. The EU has thus become a tyranny, and the laws and regulations it is passing are illegitimate.

The EU is deliberately destroying the cultural traditions of member states by flooding them with non-European immigrants and eradicating native traditions. This is a gross violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples across an entire continent. Forcing native Germans, Brits, Italians, Dutch, Greeks, Swedes or others to fund their own colonization, to suffer abuse and violence in their own countries and watch as their heritage gets extinguished is evil, not tolerant. Native Europeans are taught that we should be grateful for the cultural traditions Pakistanis, Iraqis or Nigerians bring to our countries. We are also told that we “don’t have a culture.” This is an insult to thousands of years of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, Germanic, Celtic and Slavic history. Europe has one of the richest cultural and artistic traditions on the planet. To replace this with sharia barbarism is not just a crime against Europe, it is a crime against humanity.

The European Union is the principal 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 Europe is to get rid of the EU. All of it.

The European Union has created a borderless Europe from Greece to France and from Romania to Spain and Portugal, yet the citizens of these countries still pay the vast majority 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 has any semblance of control with its own territory. Unless national borders are reestablished, the citizens of all EU member states no longer have any obligation to pay taxes. We do, however, have the right to arm ourselves. As the authorities from Berlin via Amsterdam to London and Rome fail spectacularly to uphold law and order, citizens have not just the right, but the duty to arm themselves in order to protect their property and the lives of their loved ones.

The European Union cannot be anything but anti-liberty because it concentrates far too much power in a centralized system that is almost impossible for outsiders to understand. As the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek warned in The Road to Serfdom:
- - - - - - - - -
Friedrich HayekTo 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.

We shall not rebuild civilisation on the large scale. It is no accident that on the whole there was more beauty and decency to be found in the life of the small peoples, and that among the large ones there was more happiness and content in proportion as they had avoided the deadly blight of centralisation. Least of all shall we preserve democracy or foster its growth if all the power and most of the decisions rest with an organisation far too big for the common man to survey or comprehend. Nowhere has democracy ever worked well without a great measure of local self-government, providing a school of political training for the people at large as much as for their future leaders. It is only where responsibility can be learnt and practised in affairs with which most people are familiar, where it is awareness of one’s neighbour rather than some theoretical knowledge of the needs of other people which guides action, that the ordinary man can take a real part in public affairs because they concern the world he knows. Where the scope of the political measures become so large that the necessary knowledge is almost exclusively possessed by the bureaucracy, the creative impulses of the private person must flag.

Uncle Joe of the EUThe 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 specifically designed that way. There cannot be a European democracy because there is no European demos, no European “nation” with a shared sense of pre-political loyalty. Moreover, power in the EU is concentrated heavily in institutions that are not just above the formal restraints of public consent, but also above the informal restraints of public scrutiny and insight. In short: The EU authorities can do more or less whatever they want to, as they do in relations to the Arab and Islamic world.

Charles MontesquieuWe should study the work of the great eighteenth century French thinker Charles 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 indeed 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 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 are becoming an increasingly empty ritual. The important issues have already been settled beforehand behind closed doors. Free citizens should obey laws that are passed with their consent and with the best interests of their nation and people in mind. Most of the laws across the European Union are now not passed by elected national representatives, but by unaccountable EU bureaucrats. 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 problem with the EU is not just the content of laws, but their volume. Law-abiding citizens are being 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.


Afonso Henriques said...

Saying that we can not have a democratic European Union because there are no European demos was excellent.

Maybe you can explore behind that, saying that the European Union is racist because Europe is blended by race though they are importing non whites.
You can also state that the European Civilisation is common just to Europeans and as so, we can not implement multiculturalism in Europe because, doing that, we are killing the European demos.

A good reason to be against the European Union is that many of our forefathers died so that their descendents, the ones of their group could rule themselves and the countries, not Europe.
You can point out that both Napoleon and Hitler wanted an European Union. Communists were no different.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Let me thrown in a comment about 'totalitarian': The term is coined by Mussolini and means that the state is involved in every aspect of the life of every citizen, from cradle to grave. It was not meant as a derogative, just that the state would make every citizen feel safe and secure, take care of education, health system, job creation and all other major aspects of life.

Today, one easily mixes 'authoriarian' and even 'brutalistic' with the original meaning of totalitarian. I think it's useful to keep these concepts apart.

Conservatives would use the term 'nanny state' for Mussolinis totalitarian state.

An excercise left to the reader is to identify a religion that is also totalitarian, by the original meaning of the word, by its own admission, ruling every aspect of the life of its adherents.

Ypp said...

I cannot agree that "Peace" to fool people. Peace is well known left-feminist slogan. Lenin when grabbed power in Russia, said that there were two important questions: Peace and Land. Peace means taking power from "extreamists", which are all reasonable people, and giving it to "enlightened". That's exactly what is happening. By having agreed to "Peace", peoples of Europe agreed to give away their power. That they don't understand that, is very unfortunate but its their problem.

Anonymous said...

1) What comes to my mind is the fact, that EU and their principal supporters like the german green party have no interests to import immigrants which are able to integrate, but have interest to import immigrants which have an effect of corrosion to society. See the case of the german law from last year against importing analphabetic childbrides from eastern anatolia. Now a green advocate will defend a denied anatolian childbride up to European Court of Human Rights.

This is the evidence, that they want to establish nonintegrated parallel societys to corrode the national states. They want to import militant fanatics and criminals, archaic clan mentalitys etc.

That is a case of crime against the residents of europe.

They dont want compatible immigrants, which was possible with a greencard.

2) Another point is ........ who are these Arabians on the other side, to whom they are obligated - which contracts are urgent for the EU - bureaucrats.

That is, what most people dont understand. They dont see what is behind the curtain of lies - what a the real interests of both sides of the contracts. Especially - who are the leading heads on arabian side? Give them names and faces, you know, the power of pictures.

3) What people also dont understand is, why the eastern european states join in by free will. Are there extortions, how does it work?

excuse my bad english, i can read better than write ;-)

U.K. TODAY. said...

Its an honest and valid point I wish to make on the subject of the E.U.. Throughout the whole of my adult life, and despite repeated promises and guarantees by our two-faced, slimey governments, here in the U.K., we the people, have NEVER been allowed a referendum on the suject of the E.U.. WHY?. -Because as every governmental minister and official knows fine well - A YES to Europe vote would suffer a humiliating, neigh crushing defeat. Leaving ministers no option than to LISTEN to their public at large. And lets face it - thats certainly not in their doctorine or mandates.

Unknown said...


This is a little confusing, it implies that the EU authorities are constrained in other issues. As far as I can see they are not restrained or checked on any issues whether it is relations with the Arabic world or the size of the Euro coin.

Keep up the good work.

Profitsbeard said...

I was just reading Hayek's WW II era classic "The Road to Serfdom", coincidentally, (in a yellowed 1944 printing) and it's worth a look... especially for his analysis of this despotic drift.

Until the people of the EU naturally develop into speaking one language, and joining one military (so that they develop a common esprit de corps), all artificial "forced blooms" of unreal "unity" will wilt into despotic parodies, as all such top-down follies tend to do.

Ypp said...

2 Henric
I agree with you that "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" is not the same. Authoritarian means that there is and author or authority, maybe king, which can be personalized and be responsible for their deeds. Totalitarian is more like a communist state - no personal authority, but the power of principle, which is felt in every side of life. That principle is always "equality", and comissars of equality are controlling every step and every breath.

laine said...

There is no doubt that the EU's purpose is erosion of individual rights in favor of collective rights which are refereed by a non-elected oligarchy.

Many decades of preparatory work were necessary for what were once proud and free peoples to bow their heads to the yoke without a murmur.

Socialist policies wilted all sense of personal responsibility and initiative which was replaced with a vast sense of entitlement and desire to be directed and looked after from the cradle to the grave. The last bastion of free men and enterprise, the United States was concomitantly denigrated and demonized (as well as infected with the same sickness). The resultant European sheep with an unjustified superiority complex are ready to be herded into their pens and burkas.

The stupidity of the EU totalitarian oligarchs lies in their seeming belief that they can continue to rule over the battering ram they have used to break down borders and resistance - Islamic immigrants. One totalitarianism will have to kneel to another, and one can hardly put money on the effete Europeans vs the barbarian hordes they have unleashed.

Diamed said...

All of this has been excellently addressed before by Sam Francis:

This is precisely the bizarre system of misrule I have elsewhere described as "anarcho-tyranny"—we refuse to control real criminals (that's the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that's the tyranny).
Mr. Barr's words are almost a definition of the system of government I have called "anarcho-tyranny": a combination of anarchy (in which legitimate government functions—like spying on the bad guys or punishing real criminals—are not performed) and tyranny (in which government performs illegitimate functions—like spying on the good guys or criminalizing innocent conduct like gun ownership and political dissent).

The result of anarcho-tyranny is that government swells in power, criminals are not controlled, and law-abiding citizens wind up being repressed by the state and attacked by thugs.

hope this helps.


Good post.The fundamental issues have not changed since Thomas Paines day,as human beings are forever the same,only circumstances change,and if we will not fight,we will be shorn,are we shep or men?

KGS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henrik R Clausen said...

'Peace' has fooled the proponents of the Soviet system for decades, why can't it fool again? Our politicians seem so eager for 'peace' and dialogue, they seem to have forgotten what it means to defend our liberties. They simply don't know what it means or that it's their job.

'Freedom', on the other hand, is a concept it's much harder to tinker with. Reagan understood this.

KGS said...

I draw attention to one aspect surrounding the EU's dicatorial step towards eventual oblivion, and it has in part to do with the pyschological element invloved.

I am reminded me of a conversation I had with a Finnish academic a few years ago, who drew a similar comparison between how Europe is currently behaving now, and how Jews in Europe behaved to the coming Nazi danger in the 30's. The academic stated that a people who are publicly targeted for violence have extreme difficulty in believing that the words of violence being directed against them, could possibly reflect the true intentions of those who are working towards their inevitable destruction.

It is mentally too difficult of a thought to process and to accept.

It explains why many Jews refused to leave Germany or from other parts of Europe, in spite of the anti-Semitism and instances of violent acts of savagery being directed against them. When approaching doom appears inevitable, especially over a long period of time, the subject will more than likely choose to reject that reality, and replace it with something more acceptable. "It can't be real, so therefore it is not".

Ironically, it's a part of our human psychological make up to help us mentally survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it will help us to survive physically. What is happening throughout Europe is a collective shutting of the eye, a self inflicted blindness, a form of self delusion and denial on such a grand scale, that it's is keeping us from clearly seeing the approaching danger.

What makes the fight against Islamism and the eventual Islamization of Europe a much more difficult phenomenon to tackle, is the guilt factor that Europe bears in regards to its genocide of Jews and other minorities during WWII. European guilt over the Jewish Holocaust is a both a correct and direct manifestation of European acceptance of the atrocities that were done in the name of Europe.

But ironically, it is that same European guilt over the Jewish Holocaust, which is now being used by the Islamists, --regardless of whether they are of the violent version or not-- for their own advantage and to the detriment of Europe. It is furthering the process of Europe's eventual entrance into the "Dar al-Islam" , or the House of Islam.

Remember, the only requirements for an area to be considered as belonging to the house of Islam, is:

1.) Muslims must be able to enjoy peace and security with and within this country.
2.) It has common frontiers with some Muslim countries.

This scenario presents itself as a clear and present danger, and coupled with the self delusion of our European political and academic elite that no threat exists, Europe is racing towards the edge of a very steep cliff with blinders firmly in place and caution thrown to the wind.

Afonso Henriques said...

"The resultant European sheep with an unjustified superiority complex are ready to be herded into their pens and burkas."

I don't think that that hypothetical superiority complex of Europeans towards Americans is unjustified. You just have to know what type of Europeans immigrated to the Third World and who stayed.
I don't even think that prejudice exists.

The problem is the superiority complex Europeans always had (including Americans) was in relation to other cultures which they (we) deemed inferior.
Now we (Europeans) can not blame those cultures inferiorbecause of P.C. and Multiculturalism and as so the E.U. say we have no culture but multiculturalism and that America is the bad cop of the world, the one which causes wars, etc.
I guess I made my point.

Besides that, I would like to say that all non European immigrants are the same, muslims are the ones who have a political goal (Islam) already, but the others will weather join islam or create there own anti Europe agenda.
Because Europe is not a damned constitution, much less an idea.
How can we justify multiculturalism in Europe?


It works in the way that we here just debate how bad European Union is.
We don't say that the country which join Europe will automatically have at least ten years of astonishing Economic growth. It happened in South Europe with Portugal and specially Spain. They seem to be buying Nations. But one thing is certain, after that ten years the process of "killing Nations" is now on march, well planned and well defined.
But, as long as the people are now much richer than their parents, they accept it. They don't think of the future because the post modernist non religeous tramma says that we only have our lives to live. We shall not have kids, specially of your own race, we should adopt kids from Burma or something. The kids have to do it for themselves, we as parnts are not obligated to help them as all coast as if we were a fammily. Actually, divorced single parents are the best way to taking care of a child.

But, do you know why Spain is much richer (well, not that much but though) than Portugal?
Because Spain was oriented by th E.U.
Portugal evolved in ten years from a country which Economy consisted in exploring the colonies (and mainteining a war that mobilised ten per cent of the population, in three fronts, controling territorries the size of Europe without Russia during 13 years) to a country that had no colonies and had to turn its Economy somewhere. Portugal is living exclusivelly from the European Union and now that the European Union decided that the East of the continent is more rentable than the South,, we are facing a big economic crisis.
Other countries which are now depending of the E.U. are the Luxembourg, the Netherlands, apperently even Italy.
But Belgium is a specially case. it is not "richer" or a "better place" because of Europe, as the aforementioned countries. It is a country which exists just becaue of the European Union.
I am afraid many Westernised Eastern European countries like Poland, Chech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary and Solvakia, can became fastly too much dependent on the European Union. Multiculturalism will follow. Maybe Slovenia, for all that happened in ex Yugoslavian space, can oppose mmulticulturalism, but I don't think such an insignifficant country compaired to the E.U. has any real strenght.
As the East was imprisioned by Communism during the Cold War, all of Europe is now imprisioned by the E.U. only the following contries have mannaged to escape are balluarts of the REAL EUROPE:

The next contries are insignifficant because they are artificially, there are no demos, as Fjordman intelligently outs it, to serve the country:
Montenegro is too small to make an impact, but it is to close to Serbia to whatever happens; it is more an independt province of Serbia than a different country.

The folowwing countries have too much internal problems to be considered a real country. They are at risk of vanishing:

Croatia has already in its knees to get in Europe.

For this reasons, I am with the two really independent European countries left in Europe:
Russia and Serbia.
But Russia has strange designes...

If want change, it must come from there, Russia and Serbia. We shall supprt Russia taking over Europe.
Blarus and at least Easter Ukraine are legitimate Russian territory inhabiteted by Russian peoples.
You all know already what is at risk in Kosovo.

Baron, I came here to say I am disappointed with Gates of Vienna.
The firs time Portugal is said to be in danger from a muslim atack and I know it by the TV, not by GoV?
What happened?
Well, yesterday th news oppened with the Iberian Summit featuring the two socialist owners of Portugal and Spain, Zapatero and Sócrates. The news stated that there was an elevated risk of a muslim atack in Portugal and Spain, probabilly reclaiming the Al Andaluz.

But @ generally, Europe Union buys you, they buy Nations.

Baron Bodissey said...

Afonso --

Alas, I have virtually no spare time, which means I read almost nothing except what our readers tip me about!

That means that when you read about something first at Gates of Vienna, it's because an alert reader has tipped me promptly.

There are many things that I don't report on -- e.g. Hillary Clinton -- because other blogs and news sites are covering those topics adequately.

But anything I learn of that is significant, and that might not be widely reported elsewhere, will be covered here if possible, e.g. the Fuat Deniz case.

All of this depends on my having enough time to do it. Unfortunately, my time is very limited, so many significant topics go unreported. It's unfortunate, but it can't be helped.

Afonso Henriques said...

Don't worry Baron, I understand.

Actually, you are not either Omniscient or Omnipresent so it is completely understandable.

That was of little importance, maybe a trick to elevate the importance of the summit.


Ypp said...

"Peace" is not to fool, but rather to seduce. It means first of all "Peace of mind". Remember John Lennon's "Imagine". Live like a flower, don't worry about anything. But if you don't worry, someone have to dicide for you. That is what "Peace" means - don't worry, be happy, we will decide for you. So, Europeans were not deceived, they were seduced. And Westen Europeans are no better than Eastern ones. As Russian poet Pushkin said:
-It's easy to fool me
-Because I'm glad to be fooled.

Ed Mahmoud said...

Has anybody bothered to ask how a strong central government in Brussels, that does not feature well articulated division of powers, is supposed to benefit the citizens of the individual nations? Mutual defense treaties and common markets are one thing, but how will a one size fit all Central Government better the lives of the people?

It probably won't, and I suspect its creators are people that know the citizens wouldn't accept such things if given a choice.

The EUSSR may be closer to the truth. Just as Soviet sympathizers came to control the modern US Democrat party, I suspect the EU was possibly a Soviet hatched idea, to separate Europe from the US. Even with the USSR gone, the EU will be a means for applying ever greater degress of state control over the citizens rights, that some of the individual states might never have applied to their own citizens.

Ed Mahmoud said...

Semi-OT, is the British Nationalist Party now aligned with the National Front? If they were but are no longer, when did they distance themselves?

I have become aware that our friend Chuckles the Dancing Clown has cut Lionheart adrift because he is in the BNP.

After Chuckles assertions that the Swedish Democrats were Nazis, I know not to accept everything he says as gospel.

So, a quick tutorial on the BNP would be much appreciated.

Ed Mahmoud said...


Me, I'd change it to allow all native born, non-Muslims who support the right of the native culture to be preserved, but I'm not in the BNP, nor even British.

This is from a post on the BNP web page

The enemies of British Nationalism continue to parrot the claim that the BNP is a “racist party.” This claim is most often repeated because the BNP unashamedly addresses itself to the issues and concerns of the indigenous British population, and because it seeks to ensure that British people remain the majority population in this country. Opponents point to the fact that the BNP has an all-white membership, and that we address issues concerning white people.

If the BNP is racist for holding this position, then, we would suggest, all of the following organisations - some of them state funded - are also “racist” because they too address themselves exclusively to the issues and concerns of their respective communities:

1. Watford Asian Community care

2. Watford African Caribbean Association

3. National Black Police Association

4. Metropolitan Black Police Association

5. Black Londoners Forum
(the list continues)

Ed Mahmoud said...

This is the second thread on a Blogger hosted page I bollixed up today.

Well, no harm, I guess, as now my entire post above links to BNP page in question.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Serbia is well on its way to insulting the EU:

BBC News

A (Serbian) friend of mine quoted her mother for this:

"If we elect Nikolic, NATO is going to bomb us again. I'll vote for Nikolic."

The defiance is beautiful :)

heroyalwhyness said...

I have only a question based on Fjordman's statement above:

These institutions are/were traditional seats of power - many with presumed comprehension of law and what is at stake.
Those still seated in parliament, government, pr supreme court positions - are they not alarmed? Is there no discussion or outrage about the EU's intrusion on their governance?

laine said...


2.) It has common frontiers with some Muslim countries."

Actually, Muslims believe that any land that has been claimed at any time in the past 1400 years for Allah by Muslims even if they were not able to hold it belongs to the House of Islam irrevocably. It is called consecration to Allah.

It is on this basis that bin Laden claims all of Andalusia.

The Spanish and Portuguese should receive more information on this issue. Electing a socialist government that did the Islamofascists' bidding and withdrew troops from Iraq is not enough. Nothing they do will be enough. To satisfy Muslim demands, they must return their countries to Islamic rule and choose for themselves conversion, dhimmitude or death.

Zenster said...


I believe that—while it is a correct observation—concerns over suppression of free speech paint the issue with too broad a brush. Lost in this lack of resolution or finer detail is a far more crucial issue. Unlike America, Europeans have lived without true freedom of speech throughout most of their history. This is a natural outgrowth of monarchies and a similar degree of elitism is reflected rather directly in the EU's own treatment of this basic human right. Witness the following article:

The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

The word "jihad" is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term "Islamic terrorism" to be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".

[Emphasis Added]

What the above represents is not just the suppression of free speech. Like any totalitarian body, the EU seeks to control issues at a far deeper level. What they are doing is among one of the most damning acts possible for political leadership to commit.

The EU seeks not just the curtailment of free speech but is actively pursuing—not just suppression but more so—the criminalizing of dissent.

Few other legal maneuvers bespeak such a fundamental betrayal of leadership or service to the public and its common good. Restricting free speech is most definitely an act of tyranny. There can be no doubt of that. Making political dissent impossible is the hallmark of totalitarian governance. It is a typical self-defense mechanism put in place by brittle and arbitrary ruling bodies whose sole aim is eliminating any potential threats to their position of power. This sort of self-serving legislation is a signal trait of those who seek to have people serve the state instead of government serving the people. Socialism has no more base or destructive act that it can commit.

By forcibly de-linking Islam and terrorism, the EU is simultaneously seeking to stifle all opposition to its official policy of multiculturalism. This is not just mere appeasement of Muslims but a much grander scheme aimed at legally halting any political opposition to its own designs. Make no mistake that by criminalizing any public mention of anti-Islamic sentiments the EU seeks to impose a much more far-reaching ban on all rejection of multiculturalism and its ultimate intent of destroying Europe’s heritage of white Judeo-Christian ethnicity. There are few cruder and more obvious ploys that can be used to muffle dissent and disarm one’s opponents.

The relatively unarmed European public is being stripped of yet another vital weapon that might further any rebellion against its elitist masters. Please note how the call for de-linking Islam and terrorism is issued in a “classified handbook”. Even the EU knows that some of its methods will not withstand sunlight’s disinfecting nature. Masquerading—in the way that Politically Correct agendas so often do—as a call for tolerance and the elimination of divisive language, instead yet another fundamental liberty is being eroded to the point of dysfunction. Few unalienable rights are more precious than freedom of expression. The EU knows this quite well and has made it a top priority to target this vital feature of open society.

As Fjordman correctly notes: “The EU has thus become a tyranny, and the laws and regulations it is passing are illegitimate”. It is important to remember what Ayn Rand observed about tyrannies not having any sovereign rights. In their abuse of power, the EU is automatically sealing their doom. No government can last that relies solely upon application of force to maintain its standing. Any relaxation of that applied force will result in backlash and only ever-increasing amounts of coercion can overcome the building resentment of people whose rights and very sensibilities are abused on a daily basis. Eventually, the only way that totalitarian rule of Europe can continue is when an even more virulent form of absolutist government supplants it. Albeit unknowingly, through its feckless importation of theocratic Islam, the EU has seen to this as well.

Henrik R Clausen said...

"why the eastern european states join in by free will. Are there extortions, how does it work? "

First, the EU is, by most people, still percieved as a Good Thing. We know better, because we studied the details. But we're the elite. Most people know more about Britney Spears than about Barroso, Solana and the other Eurocrats.

It's a long-term thing. We'll expose crap from the EU, over and over, and slowly the confidence will erode. That's a *lot* of work.

Second, joining the EU absolved the Eastern leaders from the problem of how to run their countries. They've been busy rubberstamping EU legislation, and are now getting confused about the "What then?" thing. The riots in Hungary were related to this confusion about goals and directions in Hungarian politics.

Third, playing along with the large EU leaders is a very convenient way for smaller leaders - like the Danish - to avoid controversy and conflict.

Finally, the east expansion was a sensible 'Welcome back!' to those countries who had been under Soviet domination. They thought they were back in the company of the free and the brave...

costin said...

"What people also don’t understand is, why the eastern european states join in by free will. Are there extortions, how does it work?"

It is not really that hard to understand why Easter-European countries join EU by free will. They are actually very enthusiastic about it.
I’m Romanian so I will talk about my country:
Romania is the country with the biggest popular enthusiasm and acceptance of the EU and this has a lot o reasons for this. Romanians have much more to gain from joining the EU in the short to medium term than to lose.

Romania has confronted for hundreds of year with the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Soviet Empire and now, EU Empire.
The accession to EU has many reasons to be a very popular issue for Romanian and Eastern Europeans in general. We have dreamt for generations about the freedoms and prosperity that the Western Europeans have. No longer than 5 years ago, I was the only one of my friends who went “to the other site” (Romanian: dincolo) only to visit a foreign country. And could do this because my father (like lots of Romanians ) works in abroad.
If I would have done this right after the revolution in ’89, I would have. been amazed to see that trees in Italy were like the trees in my country, that stupid people exist everywhere on this Earth etc etc
The level of fascination and Romanians had for the West was enormous, as we wanted to see with our eyes how would it be to live in a civilized culture.
This fascination was filled of all kind of myths, some betraying inferiority, some superiority complexes, both stupid.
But what makes Romanians enthusiastic about EU is the thought that joining we would be able to get rid of all the paralyzing corruption, that we would sometime get to live like Westerners. So, it is seen (and in the short to medium term at least, it is) as a civilizing factor. We would get rid of our balcanism and the outrageous things the politicians do, will not exist any more. (so I though also until about 3 years ago)


We are now I the stage where we gather only advantages: money from the EU for infrastructure, lots of investments, jobs, free circulation in the West, and for the first time in more than half a century, a raise in our standard of living.
Not to forget, that we know that there is somebody there, in Brussel that is paying close attention to our corrupted politicians. Isn’t this great?!

And the idea that EU would be a bad thing that could turn totalitar is alien the great majority of people. Politically Correctness, is something so alien of the regular man on the street that, even if you can sometimes hear some leftist intellectuals talking about this, they sound ridiculous. Most of the educated young people in Romania are right-wing.
But still, Politically Correctness starts to make its way to the young and cool, postmodern cosmopolite that live in big cities. Sincerely, I doubt that it will ever become a big issue here, as Romanians always tend to subvert authority and are a lot more difficult to be regimented in this thought prisons.

“Finally, the east expansion was a sensible 'Welcome back!' to those countries who had been under Soviet domination. They thought they were back in the company of the free and the brave...” This is also very true.

I am reading a lot lately about EU and immigration and the stupid multiculties, and having the occasion to spend one year in Belgium and see it with my own eyes, I find Romania to be a much more attractive place to be now. Much more vibrant and alive.

I am horrified, literally about what I found out in the last 2 years that is actually happening in the west, but for now, I can only hope that things will not turn out too bad and stay in Romania. Even though, as times passes I’m more and more pessimistic.

God help us and keep up the good work!

spacecase said...

The EU, like the UN, has become the vehicle whereby leftist movements (environmentalists, feminists, multiculturalists, and other academic and government elites) impose those laws and "rules" which would never be approved or enacted with the consent or vote of the people. Trying to slide this under the radar under the guise of "peace", "the children", or "mother earth" is just the vaseline used on the gullible majority, especially after years of PC training which impedes and silences dissent for fear of ostracism.

antitotalitarian fighter said...

The core of the EU is the single currency. It is a tool on the service of the private bankers. They decide the interest percentage, they decide how many notes they print, they decide the amount of the cash flow and trough it they control every "citizen" of the EU.

The most important institution of the society has been kidnapped by private bankers as it has happened in the USA and the UK.

urbanadder22 said...

Until the post-colonial mentality of "feeling the pain" of the semi-civilized (often uncivilized) world and that mentality's issue, the feminized weak "peace-lovers" of the 1960s, and in turn their brood of misguided leftist multiculturalists dies out, there is little hope for the reconquest of Europe.

Is there a new generation in the offing in Europe with the determination to end the "asylum-giving" and welcoming of the unwashed masses of the Islamic world with open arms and pocketbooks (the latter more important to the unwashed)?

Most probably not. In the schools, the children of the milksops--the peace-seekers--and the grandchildren of the post-colonials--are being schooled to accept "the other" not merely as equal, but in the case of the Islamics, as superior.

It is a delicate maneuver to tread the razors edge, where on one side we have the Europeans mentally (not to speak of physically)incapable of resisting the Islamic invaders, and on the other the Europeans who can readily be turned into neo-Nazi, xenophobic haters of all but their own nationality.

A pride of national accomplishment and resistance to accepting the Islamic foreigner intent on conquest by demographics as a fait accompli is necessary. Who will take the first step of leading the rising generation in that direction?

/lasse said...

[Europe is] "a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage is in doubt"
Margaret Thatcher

I believe it was Monet and his buddies that planned that the scheme to create the euro state was to only snatch a little at the time of power, that seemed to be harmless and benign, gulping bit by bit until they swallowed it all without the victim noticed it.

Of course they are not a bit interested in democracy, rather the opposite. Why else have there in all these years been absolutely noting done for a common second language so the demos can communicate with each other. A nation fantasy that have everything a nation suppose to have, coins & notes, flag, national hymn, etc but no demos, a politicians wet dream.

How can anyone even dream of that a federation of maybe more than 500 miljon people and roundabout 30 nations and even more languages can even be a pseudo democracy. Without a common language and no EU demos and how and where shall the people demand accountability.


Well when EU was expanded from 15 to 25 the referendums in most of the wannbe member states had problems to enthusiasm slightly more than 50% of the electorate, there was doubts in many states that it even going to be legitimate turn out. Manny young people were positive to the opportunity to be able to leave and seek better prospects in Western Europe. The politicians and the ruling class did of course long for well paid Brussels’ posts.