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

Towards a totalitarian Europe

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. When people who have worked on higher levels in the EU system note similarities as well, it is time people start taking this idea seriously. In 2002 Louis Michel, the then Belgian minister of foreign affairs and today a member of the European Commission, told the Belgian parliament that the EU will eventually encompass North Africa and the Middle East as well as Europe. The MEDA programme, the principal financial instrument for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, between 2000-2006 spent €5,350 million on its various programs, according to the EU’s official website. During the period 1995-1999, some 86% of the resources allocated to MEDA were channelled to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority.

From 2007, MEDA will be replaced by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which over the period 2007 to 2013 is projected to spend €11 billion on, among other things, promoting cooperation between European and Arab countries in the sectors of energy and transport; in higher education and mobility of teachers, researchers and students; Multicultural dialogue through people-to-people contacts, including links with communities of immigrants living in EU countries as well as cooperation between civil societies, cultural institutions and exchanges of young people. The European Commission, the EU’s powerful government with extensive legislative powers, shall coordinate cooperation with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, churches, religious associations and the media in matters related to this project, all according to documents available on the Internet.

Bat Ye’or, author of the book “Eurabia”, has warned against the post-Western culture of Palestinianism that has been promoted through these networks for decades.
Through a coordinated campaign monitored by the networks of the European Union bodies, a system linking politics to markets, culture, universities, media and opinion makers, has spread its totalitarian grip over the member-states in order to impose a despicable culture of lies and denial that support Europe's pro-Palestinian foreign policy.
The EU Commission and senior officials, frequently diffused through innocent sounding and semi-official organizations, create agreements with Arabs and then quietly implement them later as federal EU policy. This is accomplished because billions of Euros are floating around in a system with very little control. 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 it is largely ignored by Western media.

Joschka Fischer, ex-German foreign minister, warned that Europe risks becoming a “playground” for upcoming superpowers in the 21st century. He wanted more EU cooperation to remedy this. But we already are a playground for foreign powers, for Muslim nations in particular, who can dump their unsustainable population growth in our countries and harass the native population with near-impunity, and this is actively caused by the EU. It is going to be interesting for future historians to unveil how many senior EU leaders or bureaucrats have been bought and paid by Saudi Arabian 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, weak and pathetic 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 have not only abandoned, but are attacking their own people, selling out their historical legacy to their worst enemies, and muzzling those who object to this. You cannot artificially create a dynamic power through bureaucratic decisions, you do it through the rule of law - laws passed with the consent of the people, with their best interest in mind and therefore respected by them - respect for private property rights and by getting the state out of the way as much as possible. There are no short-cuts. It is ridiculous to believe that this ramshackle, top-heavy Frankenstein monster is going to make Europe more competitive.

I am not against cooperation between European countries in whatever form, but definitely in the shape of a pan-European dictatorship with massive amounts of bureaucracy. I understand the argument that individual nation states, save perhaps Germany, are too small to compete with China and the likes. Perhaps. But we need to get our priorities straight: Survival comes first; creating a dynamic economy comes second. The simple truth is that the EU constitutes a mortal threat to the former, and does absolutely nothing to advance the latter. Paul Belien, the editor of the Brussels Journal, has argued in his book “A Throne in Brussels” that Belgium is used as a blueprint for the wider European Union. In 2000, Belgian authorities passed a so-called “Quick Citizenship” Act. In 1960, 7.3% of the population in the city of Brussels was foreign. Today the figure has risen to 56.5%.

According to Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist.
This population replacement is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.
Yes, it is probably unprecedented in human history that a country has handed over its main city to others without firing a single shot, although this feat is now being repeated in many other European cities. Is there no opposition to this in Belgium? Yes there is, but they get silenced or even banned. The Flemish nationalist Vlaams Blok was outlawed for “racism,” and changed its name. The racism consisted of citing government statistics on overrepresentation in crime by immigrants. The judge concluded that “truth is no defense.” Père Samuel, a Turkish-born Catholic priest and one of the few speaking the language of Jesus, Aramaic, has been prosecuted for “incitement to racist hatred” by the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, because of a remark he made in 2002 when he said the following.
Every thoroughly islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority. (…) Muslims are invading Europe, resulting in an impending civil war.
Belgium is an artificial state dominated by a French-speaking bureaucratic elite, and could be viewed as a laboratory for what the EUrabians want to do to the rest of the continent, such as population replacement, largely by Muslims, and silencing opposition to this by legal harassment and through various mechanisms de facto disenfranchise the native population. Article ten in the European Convention on Human Rights supposedly ensures freedom of speech, yet spends more text on defining what is not included within the limits of free speech than on what is. Criminalizing ideas is dangerous. As John Stuart Mill explained in his book “On Liberty”, freedom of speech is the foundation of true liberty. Swedish writer John Järvenpää argues that one of the virtues of free speech is that politically incorrect viewpoints force others to rationally argue against them.

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 by Muslims to silence critics of Islam, especially since the Council of Europe has earlier decided to view Islamophobia as equal to anti-Semitism. The EU’s classified handbook, also released in 2007, bars governments from speaking of “jihad” or linking Islam and terrorism. But since we now have pan-European anti-racism laws and pan-European guidelines banning mentioning any connection between Islam and violence, does that mean that it will be impossible to talk about the Jihad Europeans are subject to? The purpose of this legislation can be none other than to muzzle critics of mass immigration.

As Robert Spencer commented.
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 European Union 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. It works because the national parliaments are still there, and most people don’t see how much has changed. Seeing is believing. If a small group of people decided to openly sideline the democratic process and start imposing laws which the public didn’t approve, there would be a rebellion. But this is what the EU has done. They have just been smart enough to hide this fact under multiple layers of impenetrable bureaucratic Newspeak, to make sure average citizens don’t fully appreciate the magnitude of what’s going on. Ideas such as “promoting peace” 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 EU can bribe the national elites by appealing to their vanity and sense of importance, elevate them from a national level to an “international level,” give them nice cars, fancy sounding jobs with power unrestrained by silly prosaic things such as the will of the people. Through promoting Multiculturalism and mass immigration, the EUrocrats hope to create a new, larger political entity by smashing the older nation states. And besides, it's easier to control people who have no distinct cultural or national identity. These self-serving elites are betraying the trust of the people they are supposed to serve, using them as guinea pigs in a disastrous social experiment by dismantling their culture and importing Muslims who attack them. They probably despise their own people, who meekly accept this and believe their ridiculous excuses. Native Europeans, who are no longer safe in their own cities, have been robbed of their history and have accepted more immigration in a shorter period of time than probably any other people in human history, yet are met with intimidation and repression if they refuse to accept more. This constitutes evil, there is no other way to put it.

According to journalist John O’Sullivan.
Some defenders of the EU claim that this admittedly undemocratic provision is offset by the increased powers of the European parliament. But this greatly exaggerates the representative nature of the Euro-parliament. Though formally democratic by virtue of being elected, it has no continent-wide European public opinion to which it might be accountable. (…) It was local nationalisms in Britain and occupied Europe that provided most of the morale to resist fascist ideologies.
This last point, that Nazi Germany was defeated by proud nations states such as the United States and Britain (a long time ago), is totally lost on the EU elites. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom argued that those who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow Commissioners 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. The Constitution will move even more power into the hands of the already powerful and unaccountable elites. The EUrocrats are basically saying that since somebody may conceivably threaten our democratic system at some point in the future, we might as well dismantle it now, in an orderly fashion. Moreover, whereas constitutions have traditionally outlined the basic workings of the state, the proposed European Constitution, running into hundreds of pages, betrays an almost sharia-like desire to regulate all aspects of life. It is an instrument of control, a blueprint for an authoritarian state.

Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state, but such societies can also be transnational, as was the Soviet Union, which the EU resembles more than just superficially: An artificial superstate run by an authoritarian bureaucracy that overrides the will of the people and imposes its ideology on the populace. Are we back in the E.U.S.S.R? Although the EU, due to its transnational nature, most closely resembles the Soviet Union, there are also similarities with Nazi Germany. The EU was created by perfecting the Big Lie technique that was championed by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels: Serve people massive lies, so big that they cannot believe that anybody would lie about it, and they will believe them, at least for a while.

It should also be mentioned that Adolf Hitler stated his admiration for the warlike nature of Islam. The admiration was mutual. Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was an Arab nationalist and passionate anti-Semite who cooperated closely with Nazi Germany during World War II. Later, leadership of Palestinian Arabs was transferred to Husayni’s nephew Yasser Arafat, a very dear friend of the EU, who in 2002 gave an interview in which he referred to "our hero al-Husayni." If the EU is supposed to protect us from the horrors of Nazi Germany, it is remarkable how many of its traits it is copying, such as flirting with Arab strongmen and admiration for Islam. The Muslim immigration the EU is promoting to Europe has triggered the largest wave of anti-Semitism since the rise of, well, Nazi Germany, and may yet force the remaining Jews to leave. That Europeans should support this organization to prevent a new totalitarian regime is a sick joke. The EU is a lot closer to totalitarian states than the "evil nation states" it is going to replace.

Since there is no European demos, no pre-political loyalty or shared public community, and since legislate power has been transferred to the unelected EU Commission, there is no way the EU can function as a democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. The EU can only become one giant Yugoslavia, either ruled by an authoritarian oligarchy in the fashion of Tito, or fall apart into civil wars. The slow, but steady stifling of free speech through legislation and Muslim Jihad violence indicates an ominous trend: Europe is moving in a totalitarian direction. This cannot be stopped or reversed before we stop Muslim immigration, which again cannot happen unless we dismantle the EU. Getting rid of the EU is the key to Europe’s survival, which is now very much in question.

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

Een vrije Nederlandse vertaling vind je op

2 Reacties:

At 09:52 Ned Erland ;-) said...

De joods-Nederlandse professor Bernard Lewis kwam onlangs met de waarschuwing dat moslims bezig zijn Europa over te nemen. Hij bezorgde Geert Wilders daarmee een academische onderbouw. En gelijk heeft hij. Het zal wel degelijk zo'n vaart lopen. We moeten ons wel degelijk zorgen beginnen maken, zoals ook deze tekst van die Noorse blogger duidelijk maakt.

At 11:28 Joris Verdonk said...

@ Vincent De Roeck

Ik ben het eens met de anti-EU-sentimenten in deze tekst, maar het verwijzen naar de islam vind ik naast de kwestie. Als de moslims in Europa seculariseren, zou het mij zelfs niet storen, moest 70% van de mensen bvb moslim zijn, voor zolang ze tenminste de scheiding tussen Kerk en Staat aanvaarden en onze verlichte levenspatronen. Ik bekijk graag individu per individu, en 99% van de moslims in Europa zijn bereid te integreren. Gaan we voor hen de boel laten verpesten door de 1% islamisten? Ik hoop van niet.

@ Ned Erland

Ik ga ervan uit dat je het interview met die professor in Elsevier van een aantal weken geleden bedoelt. Ik heb dat toevallig ook gelezen, en interpreteer het toch anders dan jij. Professor Bernard maakt tal van foute veronderstelling en als we die weglaten, blijft er van zijn betoog maar weinig recht.

In dat interview constateert hij slechts een groeiende moslimpopulatie in Europa. Hij gaat er vanuit dat wij nog steeds in het tijdperk van net na de industriele revolutie leven. Hij gaat volledig voorbij aan het feit dat we in een sterk globaliserende wereld leven en dat we aan de vooravond staan van een soort interactieve revolutie. Daardoor krijgen we juist steeds meer te maken met mensen uit de hele wereld. Dat er dan mensen naar hier komen is iets dat alleen maar zal toenemen. Op een zeker moment zullen ook omgekeerd steeds meer ´autochtone´ mensen vertrekken naar daar. Dat veel mensen uit niet-westerse landen islamitisch zijn klopt, maar niet elke immigrant is islamitisch.

Uiteindelijk, maar dat zal nog wel even duren, zal het percentage islamieten misschien ongeveer gelijk liggen aan het percentage islamieten wereldwijd. Deze ontwikkeling brengt trouwens het voordeel met zich mee, dat mensen met verschillende religieuze achtergronden tot elkaar veroordeeld zijn. Dit kan alleen maar helpen bij het terugdringen van religie tot strikt de privé-sfeer. Daarnaast heeft het kennisnemen van elkaars opvattingen een sterk relativerend vermogen en misschien leidt dit wel tot een wereldwijde humanisering. Ik zie het dus helemaal niet zo somber in als deze professor Lewis, of als Ned Erland of als de Noorse auteur van deze tekst.


Een reactie posten