The Totalitarian EU Tightens Its Grip
by Paul Weston
The increasingly dictatorial behaviour of the unelected EU Commissioners rather proves the point made by Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who way back in 2006 stated that the political structure of the European Union was similar to that of the Supreme Soviet and the Politburo, and that the similarity was intentional.
The liberal-left are woefully ignorant of history, yet with their various humanities degrees they should know something of human nature, but even this appears to be beyond their intellectual grasp. The mental make-up of all dictators seeks one thing and one thing only — control over all others. Lenin once remarked that Communism was not actually about equality for the worker, but was rather about control. Total control.
Have we not seen this in the last few weeks? Frau Merkel and Monsieur Sarkozy are both on record stating their intention to wrest further EU control from the European electorate in the wake of the Eurozone economic catastrophe (inflicted by EU economic policy) and they are now doing this in spades.Greek ex-Prime Minister Papandreou rather foolishly suggested the Greek people might like to influence their economic future in a democratic manner, only to be immediately toppled by the EU powers and replaced by Lucas Papademos, a man of impeccable Socialist economic credentials, who went from Governor of the Bank of Greece to Vice President of the European Central Bank (ECB) to Prime Minister of Greece. In other words an EU placeman in a previously democratic country.
In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi was not brought down by his lurid sexual shenanigans or his alleged lifelong corruption, but because he dared to question the validity of the euro. Enter the incensed EU Politburo, and exit the aged yet curiously wrinkle-free lecherous Lothario, to be replaced by unelected former EU Commissioner Mario Monti and a cabinet of bankers and academics, not one of whom represents a single Italian political party. Is this democracy in action? No, it is totalitarianism, pure and simple.
This should come as no surprise to those who understand the dictatorial machinations of the EU. Countries such as Ireland and Denmark were allowed referendums, but when they refused to accept the EU’s vision of a Utopian Socialist future, they were alternately threatened and bribed until they eventually complied with the wishes of the unelected EU Commissioners.
We saw the same disregard for democracy in Britain in 2004 after the North East firmly rejected setting up a Regional Assembly, much to the fury of the Labour government, whose response was simply to carry on regardless of the will of the people. In 2007 Gordon Brown established nine regional government offices complete with regional ministers, as per the EU geographical division of England.
Britain has been shamefully treated by its own politicians. The Labour manifesto of 2005 stated the electorate would be allowed to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, but they lied. David Cameron, ever clever with words, managed to sound like he intended to offer a referendum, but of course he has not. So here we are, run effectively by unelected Socialists in Brussels, via a puppet government of supposed “Conservatives” in Westminster.
In the last week alone we discovered that the EU wishes to import millions more North African Muslim migrants into Europe and Britain through Mobility Partnerships, the aim of which is to make EU action “more migrant-centred, with the aim of empowering migrants and strengthening their human rights in countries of origin, transit and destination.”
William Hague, Foreign Secretary and EU poodle, heard the call and penned an article for the Daily Telegraph outlining the importance of Turkish accession into the EU, no matter what Amnesty International might have to say about Turkey’s attitude to Human Rights. What a curious situation: even as the Arab Spring descends into Koranic Winter, our impossibly stupid politicians press for their own countries to be overrun by people unable to function in liberal democracies.
Why does the EU wish to import these racially and culturally foreign people? The answer is very simple: divide and rule, break down the community and smash the nation state. The Russians did this after they annexed the Baltic States during WWII, when huge numbers of Russians were exported to the conquered territories in an attempt to dilute and “de-nationalise” the native populations, thereby easing Soviet control.
The other reason for swamping racially and culturally cohesive countries with massed foreign people who have no intention of adopting British values is equally simple. Our rulers tell us they bring “diversity” but that is a lie. Local police chiefs talk of “nerve jangling” friction in multicultural areas which leads to ever-greater government control to keep the lid on the simmering factions. The more divisiveness, or multiculturalism, the more power to the Socialist elites — just as was planned.
Control is what it is all about. Over the last few days we learned that the EU wants the financial City of London to fall further under EU governance, with additional pressure being applied on Britain to join the calamitous Euro. Another EU diktat currently going through legislation proposes all new businesses must provide a surety of twenty-five thousand Euros. Why? Because it is far easier to control a thousand companies of a reasonable size than ten thousand smaller ones, no matter the economic destruction this will cause.
Meanwhile Frau Merkel and the EU Commissioners are making plans to ensure Britain is prevented from allowing a referendum, which under current EU law would be triggered as a direct result of the constitutional changes necessary in the proposal of a new, powerful and unelected EU quango, whose remit is the political annexation of failing Eurozone member-states.
And let us not forget the extraordinary physical power the EU already has over us. Europol, the EU’s sinister state police service, can travel across borders under diplomatic immunity. The EU even has its own paramilitary unit, the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF) which is rumoured to be operating alongside Greek riot police. Then there is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) which can be issued anywhere in Europe, requesting the arrest and extradition of a British subject — a matter in which British courts are overruled should they wish to intervene.
The EAW was introduced in 2003 to target serious crime and terrorism, but many of the thousands of European and British people extradited to date were arrested for “crimes” of laughable triviality. The future however may not be so trivial. Under the EU’s laws on racism and xenophobia it is quite possible we could see an EAW issued simply because the accused person publicly expressed his dislike of Islamic immigration, thereby exposing himself as both a “racist” and a “xenophobe”.
All of the above should be taken very seriously. And, if we had a decent mainstream media, I have no doubt it would, but the Socialists in the media are in broad agreement with the Socialists in Brussels, so the dictators get a free pass. Can you imagine the BBC still supporting the European Union if Brussels had been taken over by the political right? Of course not — they would denounce the EU as a totalitarian disgrace — and they would be correct.
The EU has passed 120,000 pieces of legislation, out of which only some 10% have been enacted. The remainder are waiting to be used in the future. The framework has already been built for total and utter control of previously democratic European countries; we now simply await their enforcement. When might this be? No one knows for sure, but it seems a good long-term bet to suggest we will be subjected to an incremental tightening of their control over us. Whether it remains a soft ideology remains to be seen, but there is no reason at all to think the violent Socialist history of the last century is now behind us.
We are watching a genuine dictatorship in the making. These people have no regard for democracy, and their Socialist ideology is simply a softer version of the Communist ideology that murdered over 100 million people over the last century, whilst simultaneously destroying the economies and societies of the nations it infected. The most powerful man in Europe is Commission President Barroso, an ex-Maoist with no apparent regrets, and even now his apparatchiks talk of the new powers appropriated on the back of the economic disaster as a “Great Leap Forward.” During the Chinese “leap”, of course, Chairman Mao murdered some 45 million of his own people.
This madness must be stopped. UKIP provides a platform to vote against the EU, but if you also care about the long-term threat of Islam, then there is only one civilised political party which acts on your behalf, and that party is British Freedom.
Previous posts by Paul Weston:
14 comments:
Excellent essay! :)
The way things are now, I'm no longer sure how to interpret the information that I'm confronted with. In todays edition of major Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladed, there is a story entitled Say hello to the new leaders. Below the headline there is a revolver aimed at you (the reader).
The first paragraph that follows is:
"When almost all economists agree, it's often times prudent to remove the safety from your revolver. In the Year 2011, all educated people are expected to realise the obvious in that the only way to get out of the crises is to break the law and put [our] fate in the hands of a few secretive bureaucrats beyond democratic control"
Now, the thing about revolvers is what I can't really interpret. Maybe it's some well known saying that is not well known to me. Either way, the criticism is pretty sharp. The tone of the article as a whole doesn't feel out of sync with what columnists in Sweden as a whole write these days either.
The reason the EU Commissioners remain unelected is because the national governments want it that way. They don't want an elected (and therefore credible) alternative source of political power to challenge the authority of the various presidents, prime ministers and chancellors of Europe.
But all that is about to change. There are proposals to not only elect EU Commissioners, but also an EU President in continent-wide elections. There are also proposals to make the European Parliament more accurately reflect representation by population, while balancing the interests of the smaller nations with a new EU Senate.
As for Papandreou, what kind of bad-faith negotiator suddenly announces a surprise referendum only after the bailout deal he agreed to had been finalized? He signed his own political death warrant with that dishonest stunt.
It is also pure demagoguery to claim that the supposedly Supreme Soviet-like "EU Politburo" removed Papandreou and Berlusconi from office. The Greeks and Italians are free to choose their own prime ministers, or hold new elections, or referendums, or leave the eurozone or EU any time they want to. But guess what? Virtually the entire political class and the large majority of ordinary people in both countries want to keep the euro, so they're going to voluntarily take their German-prescribed austerity medicine instead.
And there was a referendum in Britain about remaining in the EEC in 1975. The Yes side won by more than 30 points. Is the No side really that eager to lose again? And why should true conservatives and nationalists want to leave the EU when their political parties (UKIP and BNP) are well represented in Brussels while being completely shut out of the 650-seat Westminster Parliament?
The most powerful man in Europe is Commission President Barroso
Really? How long did it take for Angela Merkel to completely shoot down Barroso's plan for eurobonds last week? About five minutes? Until the EU Commissioners and President are elected and fiscal union has been achieved (both of which are coming, whether you like it or not), the German Chancellor will continue to dominate Europe.
Check out this article by Peter Schiff in the Financial Post. He speculates that Merkel's long-term strategy is to replace the US dollar with the euro as the world's reserve currency, and that her plan will probably succeed. This is the emerging reality of a united Europe replacing the US as the world's economic superpower, so IMO it's better to get on board and try to shape the EU from the inside than to impotently and incessantly rail against an imaginary "EUSSR" straw man.
UK and European political tensions are far more subtle and sophisticated than the red scare politics of the socialist boogeyman.
A post-multikulti European superpower Pax Consolidation maybe on the cards, I would not bet against it.
Jeppo, last year I exchanged words with a person that argued that if only Sweden would encourage a much increased immigration, Sweden was set to become a major European power house. I must admit that I was rather stunned that anyone would even argue such a thing. My reply was: Even if that were to be true - why would we, the people, ever wish for that to happen? Sweden as a country might possibly become more powerful if her population was multiplied - but the Swedish people would become less powerful because we would no longer even be masters of our own house.
I understand why some politicians would want that though. They want power. Like business leaders they seek mergers and acquisitions to become the head of ever larger organizations.
We, the people, want power over no one but ourselves.
With that, I pose the same question to you: Why would we, the people, ever want to give up our freedom just to become part of a Superpower? Why would Europeans want their countries to be united in a federational Superpower? To have the power to dominate others? The peoples of Europe want co-operation. The peoples of Europe want self-determination. The peoples of Europe want to be the masters of their own fate, and their own fate only.
Having a superpower for a government is not a good thing for the individual, certainly I can attest to that.
It is one thing to deal with genuine security threats to the citizenry. Is the EU currently doing this in any significant way, or are they rather on the side of increasing the actual insecurity of their peoples both by the importation of violent criminals and by the direct threat of police action against those citizens when they ask that the laws be enforced impartially?
Chiu Chun-Ling.
"and that her plan will probably succeed."
LOL!
Not without military subjugation, ala the US Civil War.
Aint gonna happen. The Euro and the Union is crumbling as we speak, anyways.
Not to mention US military security and financial backing. Without that the Euro isnt going anywhere....and if the Euros think that the US will provide military security for Euro dreams of bringing down the dollar, what a hoot!
You had me there for a minite, jeppo.
The Germans just had a debt sale fail on Wednesday, couldnt find buyers.
Who is Mario Monti?<
November 14, 2011 by David P. Goldman aka Spengler
Mr. Weston:
You underestimate Chairman Mao's death count by half, at least.
Without firearms, I don't see English people getting free of Brussels or their UK puppets. The Army might fight to protect itself, or the gov't paymasters, but it's up to people to get themselves free of foreign powers. That, or get used to the yoke.
A sharp economic collapse might bring enough pain to the remaining "traditional English people" that they will fight. I hope so, because there is a chance to win if you fight.
Best wishes from Portlandia.
The devil is in the details the front of the article is from the point of view of a British political party - British Freedom.
The devil is that the European Union could outlast the British Union, 'devo max' or independence for Scotland will spell the end of the British state and have serious social and political remafications for England. One possibility is that the Scots politicians lose control of the debate and the populace push for independence on their own political agenda.
The critical question is “Is democracy as we know it, instituted through the use of a universal franchise, failing (as predicted); essentially, as currently defined and exercised, can democracy produce any solution at all and, if not, what can or will replace it?.”
Certainly religio-ethnic nation state democracies are viable.
Democracy is not the same as republican government. The idea in a republic is not just that the "populace" rules, but that the citizens have the voice in government which is the just due of their furnishing the means by which the country is supplied with its material and security needs.
We must return to the understanding that citizenship is not the universal human right of anyone that happens to be within the borders of a nation but is the province of those who act to uphold the fundamental laws of the nation while supplying the goods on which continued national existence depends. The first and most indispensable class of citizen is the militarily effective volunteer in its defense. Without these, a country has no borders or laws at all, and nationhood is impossible.
The second class of citizen is those whose productivity of the basic goods of life is sufficient to enable them to use the surplus to support the military. Without them, a nation must be impoverished in its defense, economy, and sociality. While a nation in which the military is obliged to support itself in the field can meet the minimum requirements of being called a nation, it does not deserve to be called a civilization. It will have a brutal but inherently weak military.
In certain evolutions of Western civilization, both forms of citizen have been combined under the idea of the militia. The militia is composed of those ready to fight to defend their country but normally engaged in the business of doing the productive work of society. More typical of non-Western civilization has been a strict division between the productive and the military classes (in many societies, it was against the law for members of the one class to attempt to join the other). Of course this also holds true of many of the societies through which Western Civilization traces it's long evolution, but it is not therefore particularly characteristic of the West since it is even more common in the history of other nations.
The point being, that pure democracy does not distinguish between those who naturally deserve the rights of citizenship and those who are simply additional mass for the rule of the mob. This is why, prior to the last hundred years, "democracy" was almost universally reviled and derided as a principle of sound government.
Continued...
Tyranny has evolved in meaning, from meaning a ruler who exercised the power to rule without legal authority to the more nuanced idea of the legitimate authority to rule deriving from the consent of the citizens (who, by virtue of their contributions to the existence of the nation, had a natural right to a voice in its government). Both the ancient and classically liberal definitions are rooted in the idea of a ruler who acts contrary to law, though the distinction between natural and statutory law underwent considerable evolution in Western thought.
A republic was understood to mean a nation that was governed by rulers who held legitimate authority to govern derived from their adherence to the laws of the nation. In Classical liberal thought, these laws were the extension of the natural rights of the citizens to have their contributions to the creation and maintenance of the nation recognized and rewarded with a say in the laws that would govern it. This was expressed as "consent of the governed". But it would be nonsensical to assert that the 'governed' who must consent to the authority of government must include the criminal and the vagabond. It would render the laws without meaning if they could only be enforced with the consent of those breaking them.
And if the laws are made by those who contribute nothing to the security and prosperity of the nation, then it is the very natural citizen who will soon be made a 'criminal' for daring to retain their own rights and possessions in preference to yielding them up to the shiftless drain on society who do not bother to produce even what they consume.
None of this is to say that the task of identifying those who have a natural right to citizenship is easy to perform justly. It took a long time for women generally to be admitted as full citizens, despite the fact that they perform the most invaluable contribution to a nation that there can be, the bearing and raising of future countrymen. Other, generally less extreme, examples of unjust citizenship laws abound. But to extend the rights of citizenship without any standards at all is to dilute those rights into meaninglessness.
This is precisely the meaning of democracy, and the reason that it has become the shibboleth of those seeking to destroy the right of those who have earned citizenship to be the sole possessors of it.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Now, the thing about revolvers is what I can't really interpret. Maybe it's some well known saying that is not well known to me.
When I hear the word 'democracy' I reach for my revolver?
Post a Comment