For our heritage and freedom ! Home | About | Contact | Vincent De Roeck | Liberty Quotes | The Free State | In Flanders Fields | Nova Libertas | Feeds |

Why the European Union must be dismantled

At the EU Observer, Dr. Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, notes that in every EU member state at present the majority of laws now come from Brussels. Why do national politicians and representatives accept this situation? European "ministers" see themselves as political architects of a superpower in the making. By participating in the European Union, they can also free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments. 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.

According to professor Anthony Coughlan.
The great bulk of European laws are never debated at council of minister level, but are formally rubber-stamped if agreement has been reached further down amongst the civil servants on the 300 council sub-committees or the 3,000 or so committees that are attached to the commission.
He suggests a plausible explanation.
At 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.
Tony Blair, in one of his final interviews as British PM, stated that "The British people are sensible enough to know that, even if they have a certain prejudice about Europe, they don't expect their government necessarily to share it or act upon it." In other words: The British people should be sensible enough to know that their government will ignore their wishes and interests if it deems this appropriate, as it frequently has in its immigration policies.

The EU is basically an attempt – a rather successful one so far – by the elites in European nation states to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and eventually abolishing the democratic system, a slow-motion coup d'état. Ideas such as "promoting peace" are used as a pretext for this, a bone to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab. It works because national parliaments still appear to be functioning as before.

This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the EU: It is increasingly dictatorial, but it is a stealth dictatorship, whose most dangerous elements are largely invisible in everyday life. What the average person sees is that the EU 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 elected 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 without their consent. 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.

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.

Glossocracy can be traced back at least to the slogan of the French Revolution in 1789, "Freedom, equality, brotherhood." As it turned out, this meant mass terror, martial law and authoritarian rule. The more meaningless the word, the more useful it is for glossocrats. This is why the notion of Multiculturalism has been so useful, since it sounds vaguely positive, but ambiguous and could be used to cover up vast changes implemented with little public debate. The impulse behind Political Correctness consists of twisting the language we use, enforcing new words or changing the meaning of old ones, turning them into "weapons of crowd control" by demonizing those who fail to comply with the new definitions. The EU, a French-led enterprise, is currently the world's pre-eminent and most unadulterated glossocracy.

According to Boot, a dictator whose power is based on bullets is afraid of bullets. A glossocrat whose power is based on words is afraid of words. The EU has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to use "non-offensive" phrases when talking about terrorism. The word Jihad should preferably not be used at all, or should be explained as a misunderstood term meaning peaceful struggle against oneself. These recommendations are being implemented. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in an attempt to avoid offending Muslims, in the summer of 2007 banned his ministers from mentioning "Muslim" and "terrorism" in the same breath, following attempted terror attacks staged by Muslims - including several doctors - in the United Kingdom.


To quote Paul Fregosi's book "Jihad in the West".
The Jihad, the Islamic so-called Holy War, has been a fact of life in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East for more than 1300 years, but this is the first history of the Muslim wars in Europe ever to be published. Hundreds of books, however, have appeared on its Christian counterpart, the Crusades, to which the Jihad is often compared, although they lasted less than two hundred years and unlike the Jihad, which is universal, were largely but not completely confined to the Holy Land. Moreover, the Crusades have been over for more than 700 years, while a Jihad is still going on in the world. The Jihad has been the most unrecorded and disregarded major event of history. It has, in fact, been largely ignored. For instance, the Encyclopaedia Britannica gives the Crusades eighty times more space than the Jihad.
At the same time as the memory of 1300 years of almost continuous Jihad warfare and Islamic aggression is gradually being erased from Western school textbooks, "Islamophobia" is being promoted as a serious challenge. By substituting "Jihad" with "Islamophobia," emphasis is moved from Europeans defending themselves against Islamic violence to innocent Muslims suffering from prejudice and racism. An alternate word thus creates an alternate reality. Italian President Napolitano, apparently afraid of what he perceives as growing opposition to the EU project, thinks Eurosceptics are "psychological terrorists."

So, EU-leaders won't use the word "terrorist" about Muslims supporting suicide bombers, but they have finally found somebody deserving the label: Europeans who oppose the EU. In a frank moment, Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's PM, described the EU's "system" in this way.
We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." In The Economist, columnist Charlemagne writes: "What Mr Juncker and those who think like him are trying to do is, in essence, to drown opposition to European federation in a mass of technical detail, to bore people into submission. As a strategy, it has gone a long way. The greatest single transfer of sovereignty from Europe's nations to the European Union took place, in 1985, as part of the project to create a single European market. Even [British Conservative PM] Margaret Thatcher, not usually slow to spot a trick, later claimed that she had not fully appreciated the ramifications of what she was then signing up to.
In 2005 and 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 aid programs, many of which are geared towards Arab and Muslim countries. Half of the project budgets approved by the European Commission were inadequately monitored.

This story of fraudulence was largely ignored by the media. The European Commission is the government of half a billion people from Hungary to Britain and from Finland to Spain, yet it can release accounts with massive flaws for over a decade straight. Such a lack of oversight would have been unthinkable in the United States. The European Union gets away with it because it appears distant in people's everyday life and is not subject to any real checks and balances.

The EU 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. Europeans are thus financing their continent's merger with, in reality colonization by, the Muslim world without their knowledge and without their consent. It must be the first time in human history where an entire continent is being culturally eradicated with bureaucratic precision. This represents perhaps the greatest betrayal in the history of Western civilization, yet is still largely ignored by mainstream media.

EU Commissioner Margot Wallström in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow Commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. They gave the European Union sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States. This is preposterous. The EU in fact has a lot more in common with totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany - and the Soviet Union - than the supposedly evil nation states it seeks to replace, especially its tendency to suppress freedom of speech, indoctrinate school children with blatantly false information and impose decisions upon its subjects without consent.

A conference on Racism, Xenophobia and the Media in Vienna in May 2006 was coordinated by the EU. By the end of 2006, the network of media practitioners involved in the Euro-Arab Dialogue had grown to over 500. These included people, media and organizations from all 37 countries of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. European and Arab journalists produced dozens of recommendations on how to enhance their cooperation and promote "mutual understanding" between their cultures and religions in the media.

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (read: Eurabian affairs), addressed the assembly of journalists. According to her.
We do not believe the media should be regulated from outside, but rather that you find ways to regulate yourselves. (...) 2008 is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and I am determined that by then we will have made significant improvements in the level of mutual respect and understanding our communities have for one another. In the months and years to come we must reach beyond the elites to the man and woman on the street. That is a vital part of the fight against racism and xenophobia. And you will be the key to achieving that. (...) Freedom of expression is not the freedom to insult or offend. Hate speech is always abhorrent. The European Union has in numerous agreements with Muslim countries made it clear that Islamophobia is a form of racism.
The EU in 2007 made 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" could be used to silence critics of Islam and Muslim immigration, especially since the Council of Europe has earlier decided to view Islamophobia as equal to anti-Semitism. At the same time as the EU is signing agreements enhancing the cooperation with, including immigration of, Arabs and Muslims, it is banning opposition to this and is co-opting the media into toeing the party line and promoting the official, Eurabian ideology. The European Union thus increasingly exhibits many of the hallmarks of a totalitarian state, a pan-European dictatorship.

As Robert Spencer commented at Jihad Watch.
Soon Eurabia will resemble the old Soviet Union, in which dissidents furtively distributed samizdat literature and faced stiff penalties if the authorities discovered what they were doing. Europeans who care about what is happening to them will have to travel West, buy books that tell the truth about Islamic jihad, and distribute them at home away from the watchful eye of EU bureaucrats.
The Eurabian networks were created against a backdrop of Arab Jihad terrorism. A series of hijackings and attacks, many of them approved by PLO leader Yasser Arafat, who later received the Nobel Peace Prize from my country, were carried out in the 1970s. Arafat was awarded for this by being allowed to address the UN general assembly. During the 1985 Palestinian hijacking of the Italian cruise ship "Achille Lauro", rescue plans were thwarted by the Italian government whose "foreign policy required it to maintain close relations with the Arab states and the PLO," according to Philip Heymann, former US attorney-general.

As Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says.
The international community responded to terrorism between 1968 and 2001 by rewarding and legitimising it, rather than punishing and condemning it. Seen in this light, it is no wonder we had to suffer the horrors of 9-11. Those who bestowed these benefits on the Palestinians following their terrorism, especially our EU allies and the UN, made 9-11 unavoidable.
I must take issue with Mr. Dershowitz here: I have heard Americans state that Muslims should like the United States, since Americans have tended to side with Muslims in many conflicts around the world during the past decades. That is actually true, and it is not something Americans should brag about. The Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 was grossly mishandled by Western leaders, ranging from US President Jimmy Carter to French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, as well as Western left-leaning intellectuals and media. Likewise, the reactions to the death threats made by the same regime a decade later against Salman Rushdie met with a muted response. The Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s as well as the Balkan wars, where the United States and NATO actively intervened on behalf of Muslims, firmly established the impression in Muslim minds of a decadent civilization no longer willing or able to defend itself.

It was clearly perceived Western weakness, not aggression, which led to the terror attacks of 9/11, and Americans themselves made significant contributions to this. Even otherwise good presidents such as Ronald Reagan never fully understood how to deal with Muslims. Still, even though Americans made contributions to this problem, too, which they did, it is undeniable that Western appeasement of Muslims started with Western European surrender to Arab physical and financial (oil embargo) terrorism in the 1970s and became institutionalized through the Euro-Arab Dialogue. This appeasement contributed to the resurgence of Jihad that now spans several continents.

The EU is by its advocates presented as an organization devoted to promoting "peace." The EU never had anything to do with peace; it was and is a naked power grab by European elites who have used it to wage a cultural and demographic war against the very peoples and nations they were supposed to represent. Their appeasement of Muslims not only constitutes a threat to the survival of Europe, which it certainly does, it has destabilized the situation far beyond the borders of Europe. The Euro-Arab cooperation thus represents a threat to world peace. And since this cooperation has become a deeply entrenched feature of the EU, this leads to one possible conclusion: The EU must be dismantled.

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy fears that the EU is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech, he called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed.
The sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas.
The organization Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE) has received permission to stage a demonstration in Brussels against the Islamization of Europe this September 11th. Whether there will be one million demonstrators is doubtful, but it should be possible to gather enough people to get noticed. Citizens of Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, Italy or any other EU member state concerned with Islamic inroads in their country should turn up and protest. Since the Islamization of Europe is actively and deliberately championed by the EU on a daily basis, fighting Islamization is in my view inseparable from fighting the EU itself. At the very least, demonstrators should carry banners advocating abolishing the Euro-Arab Dialogue, dismantling the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures as well as all other instruments for Euro-Mediterranean and Eurabian cooperation. The EU should ban all direct or indirect aid to the Palestinians and distribute this to the defense of our civilizational cousin Israel, it should cease promoting a blatantly false view of Islamic Jihad during 1300 years in European schools and it should immediately halt all talks with Turkey regarding EU membership. Enough is enough.

Dit opiniestuk werd geschreven door een anonieme Noorse blogger met harde eurosceptische en islamkritische standpunten. De tekst verscheen ook in The Brussels Journal en op zijn weblog.

Meer teksten van deze auteur op www.fjordman.blogpost.com.

3 Reacties:

At 11:12 Sonya Zemny said...

Er is wel degelijk plaats voor de Islam in Europa, al was het maar omdat het er altijd al is geweest. De vraag is zelfs overbodig en een politieke manipulatie gebaseerd op een discours dat zich pluralistisch denkt maar in werkelijkheid een verborgen suprematie inhoudt. Zolang de vraag gesteld wordt, zullen Moslims voorwerp blijven van discriminatie. Uiteindelijk spreekt Europa dan niet meer over multiculturalisme en verdraagzaamheid maar over regelrechte gelijkschakeling. Het denkt niet aan gelijkwaardigheid maar aan "het weggommen van diversiteit". En in een wereld zonder verschillen regeren grijsheid en monotonie.

 
At 15:22 Caroline Van Hecke said...

Sonya, ik begrijp je kritiek op het islamdeel van deze tekst. Het gaat om een tekst van "Fjordman" (www.fjordman.blogpost.com) en dat is inderdaad een zéér rechtse islamcriticus, maar deze tekst is wel zéér interessant en zéér juist als je de harde islampunten wegdeemstert. Het anti-EU-stuk is gewoonweg schitterend en legt de vinger op de wonde. Ik denk dat ook Vincent De Roeck deze tekst in de eerste plaats gepubliceerd heeft op zijn blog omwille van de EU-kritiek, en niet omwille van de anti-islamstandpunten. Daarom zou het ook intellectueel oneerlijk zijn, Sonya, om deze tekst net op het islamstuk aan te vallen. Je kritiek is natuurlijk wel terecht.

 
At 13:13 Anneke De Hondt said...

De Europese Unie moet inderdaad bestreden worden, met zijn drang naar nivellering en harmonisering, en zijn wensen om ook politiek boven zichzelf uit te stijgen ten koste van de nationale democratieën, maar wat de islam hierbij komt doen, begrijp ik toch ook niet. Daarmee zeg ik - denk ik - ongeveer hetzelfde als de twee vrouwen hierboven.

 

Een reactie plaatsen