Whither Europe? Welcome Back to the EUSSR

Back to the Future? Rather: Europe is Heading Back into its Past, and this is important for the Rest of the West as 'Brussels' is the globalists' preferred governance model

Every now and then, a bit of re-reading ‘old news’ from yesteryear show the magnitude of the betrayal and—dare I say it out loud—treason of those who rule over the peoples of Europe.

Long-term readers know of my wariness, if not outright hostility to the European Union. Re-reading some ‘old news’ from over 15 years ago shows that this hostility doesn’t come about because of whatever sentiment or misgiving about ‘politicos™’ I hold (no worries, there’s plenty of that).

My objection stems from the fundamentally authoritarian-totalitarian and treasonous nature of what we call ‘the EU’ and how its leadership (sic)—really: little more than a sick joke of evil sock puppets whose strings are pulled elsewhere—has eviscerated the constitutional arrangements that have governed European countries since 1945.

I have dealt with the functioning of the EU as-it-is elsewhere, and I suggest you read through the below piece (but, not worries, the below text also works as a stand-alone):

A Citizen’s Guide to the Subversion of Democracy

Emphases and [snark] mine.

Without much further ado, here we go. Sigh.

---

Back in the EUSSR

By Paul Belien, via The Brussels Journal, 21 June 2007 [source]

n the late 1980s the USSR, Ronald Reagan’s ‘evil empire’ [why the scare quotes?], imploded. America might soon be confronted with another evil empire. Tomorrow, Europe’s politicians meet in Brussels to discuss how they can revive the constitutional treaty, often called the European Constitution, a bloated blueprint (more than 160,000 words in its English version) for transforming the European Union (EU) into a superstate [that would be the Lisbon Treaty].

Exactly two years ago, this constitution was rejected in referendums in the Netherlands and France. This came as a blow to Brussels, the capital of Belgium and home to the European Commission, the unelected EU executive, and its army of 54,000 eurocrats, a bureaucracy molded in the worst centralist and authoritarian French and German traditions [I’d basically argue it’s worse than that (I know): it’s a form of what Karl Marx called ‘oriental despotism’, and we’ll address this in the bottom lines].

Soon after the referendums it became apparent that the European politicians intended to ignore the people’s verdict and proceed with their plans for constructing the superstate. During the past six months, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been busy drafting a so-called amended treaty. This bypasses the need for public referendums on the new powers for Brussels, but retains the substance of the constitution—granting the EU substantial powers over its member states, such as the right to override national legislation and to impose a common foreign policy [see my above-linked ‘Citizen’s Guide’].

[here follow a few paragraphs about Britain’s positions in 2009, which I’ll skip here, mainly due to what was said in 2007—‘Brexit’ might become true—actually transpired]

The British, and in particular the English, are the most euroskeptic of all European peoples. If forced to choose, they seem prepared to opt for British sovereignty over the European Union. Some regard this as almost a criminal attitude. Last week, the president of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano [remember that he’s a lifetime, card-carrying Communist who was also, according to Wikipedia, ‘a close friend of Henry Kissinger’: what a small world, eh?] said that ‘those who are anti EU are terrorists’ [join my club, won’t you?], while his colleague Horst Köhler, the president of Germany [in office 2004-10; before his tenure, he was head of the IMF (2000-04), and from 2012-13, he ‘served on the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda: isn’t it amazing how a lifelong Commie and a former IMF head can agree on these identical sentiments?], described the tactics of the ‘euroskeptics’ [more scare quotes] as ‘populist, demagogic campaigning’. It sounded almost as if Italy and Germany were blaming Britain for not having drawn lessons from the second World War, conveniently forgetting that it was England’s love of freedom [ahem] that saved Europe from dictators like Messrs. Napolitano’s and Kohler's predecessors, Mussolini and Hitler. The latter, too, nursed dreams of European political unification [well, how did the EU turn out…?].

Liberty and democracy require limited governments, while supranationalism by definition tends toward unlimitedness [hi, my dear American readers: would you mind relating your sentiments about the DC Blob?]. The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky refers to the EU as the ‘EUSSR’. He does so, he explains, because the former USSR and the EU share the same goal: the obliteration of nations [same as the WEF and its cadre of odd sock puppets—strange bedfellows, as they say]. ‘The European Union, like the Soviet Union, cannot be democratized’, he says. If the EU becomes a genuine state it is bound to be an evil empire, because there is no European nation.

‘National loyalty is a form of neighborliness: It is loyalty to a shared home and to the people who have built it’, says the conservative English philosopher Roger Scruton. Without this loyalty there is no freedom, because ‘national loyalties enable people to respect the sovereignty and the rights of the individual’. [this is perhaps the one key political contribution of ‘Europe’ to the history of the world, however imperfectly ‘we’ live up to it].

By seeking to extinguish national loyalty, the EU also destroys freedom, accountability and democracy. The eurocracy aims to extinguish the old national loyalties of the European peoples, and put a cosmopolitan indifference in their place.

---

The Betrayal of Freedom in Europe: Back in the EUSSR

By Paul Belien, via The Brussels Journal, 19 Dec. 2007 [source]

Last Thursday, the heads of government of the 27 member states of the European Union convened in the Portuguese capital Lisbon to sign the EU Reform Treaty. That ‘Treaty of Lisbon’ is almost identical to the European Constitutional Treaty, the so-called EU Constitution, which was rejected two years ago in referendums in major EU member states.

The EU rules stipulate that treaties only become effective when they have been ratified in all 27 member states. The ‘no’ votes in the 2005 referendums killed the constitution, which would have transformed the EU from a supranational organization of 27 sovereign member states into a genuine single European federal state with 27 provinces. It was clear from the outset, however, that the peoples of the various European states were not willing to renounce their national sovereignty for a ‘United States of Europe’.

[here we may begin a kind of super-odd ‘game’: what’s the most outrageous statement in the following?]

Nevertheless, the European leaders are determined, no matter what their electorates say, to transform the EU into a USE. As Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, said prior to the referendums: ‘If the vote is yes, we will say: We go ahead. If it is no, we will say: We continue.’ Or as the former president of France, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the chairman of the so-called convention, which drew up the constitution, said: ‘The rejection of the constitution [by the voters in referendums] was a mistake which will have to be corrected.’ [I’ve got a better plan: go to hell]

In order to correct [sic] the voters’ mistake the reform treaty was drafted. This [Lisbon] treaty is a copy of the constitution, with the articles in a somewhat different order, with many additions to deliberately complicate the text and without references to a national flag or anthem. As Mr. Giscard explained in June to the Paris leftist paper Le Monde: ‘Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly…All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.’ [note that Mr. Giscard was a centrist Cold War ‘technocrat’ (sayeth Wikipedia) who liked to work with West Germany on these issues: the contempt of Europe’s ‘leaders™’ for the European peoples is—quite something to behold].

Or as Guiliano Amato, the foreign minister of Italy and the former vice chairman of the convention [he, too, is a lifelong Socialist, by the way, who also agrees with the ‘technocrats’, Communists, and former IMF head: who could have imagined that…], said about the document that the European leaders signed last week: ‘They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception.’

The EU leaders agreed that none of the member states (apart from Ireland, which is obliged to do so under its own constitution) will hold a referendum about the new treaty. Instead, the national parliaments will ratify the treaty. ‘There is a cleavage between people and governments’, admitted French President Nicolas Sarkozy [remember him?]. ‘A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no treaty if we had a referendum in France.’ [you see, EU politicking is a bit like bombing for peace, fucking for virginity, or queers for Palestine: stupid, nonsensical, and utterly impossible].

Once the Lisbon Treaty is ratified in all member states, the legal nature of the EU will change into that of a state. The national constitutions and the national parliaments will be subordinate to the EU, which will be enabled to unilaterally increase its own powers [which is exactly what we’re witnessing, to cite but two examples].

Europe’s politicians are very eager to sell out their national sovereignty to the EU because the Brussels-based EU governing bodies are either unelected (the commission) or unaccountable (the council). Moreover, the European Parliament is not a real parliament. It cannot reject the so-called EU directives, which the national parliaments are obliged to incorporate into their national legislation. Even today, up to 70% of the legislation in the various 27 EU member states emanates from Brussels.

Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has coined the term ‘EUSSR’ to refer to the EU. He claims Europe is on its way to developing into a totalitarian state. In the early 1990s Mr. Bukovsky was given permission to research the secret documents of the Soviet leadership. To his amazement he found a transcript there of a conversation held during a visit in January 1989 of Mr. Giscard to then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. In this conversation the former declared to the latter that ‘within 15 years Europe is going to be a federal state’. The USE project was delayed a bit by the 2005 referendums, but European politicians have managed to get it back on track in Lisbon. ‘Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?’ Mr. Bukovsky asks…

---

Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is a Reincarnation of the Former Soviet Union

Op-ed by Hans Vogel, Pravda, 4 Nov. 2009 [source]

Now that the Czech Republic has announced it will ratify the Lisbon Treaty, the EU will be even closer yet to becoming a unified monster state, with more than half a billion inhabitants. Inhabitants is the correct term, since ‘citizens’ would indicate a set of political rights. The people living in the EU should rather be called ‘subjects’, since they have no influence whatsoever on the constitution of the centralized European government, the ‘European Commission’. The Europeans are allowed to vote for members of the European Parliament, but this body has about as much political power as the ineffectual German parliament meeting at Frankfurt in 1848 [remember that this parliamentary assembly was supremely supremacist and all for ‘holy war against Russia’, which is at least a kind of consistency with respect to the present EU leadership…]. Political power in the EU is firmly in the hands of the European Commission, which is set to obtain even more power under the Lisbon Treaty. This infamous treaty does not hold the peoples of Europe in high regard. As a matter of fact, it is only halfway through the treaty (originally presented as a ‘Constitution’) that one finds the first references to the people.

The first impression one gets while reading through Chapter III of the Lisbon Treaty (the so-called reader-friendly text), is a rather favorable one. This so-called Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union ‘places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice’. That really sounds grand and reassuring, does it not? Reading on, one clause seems even more impressive than the other.

For instance, article 1 is wonderful: ‘Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.’ [that is, except when there’s a WHO-declared, so-called ‘Pandemic™’ and you aren’t permitted to travel without a Covid Passport]. So is article 3:1: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.’ [did I mention the ‘vaccination = freedom’ so-called ‘art™’ installation in Germany in 2021?] What about article 6: ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.’ [we better ask Edward Snowden or Julian Assange about this, eh?] And look at article 8:1 ‘Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.’ [I’m running out of cynicism here…] Or what did you think of article 11: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.’ [now it would be time to mention, I suppose, all the censorship of ‘misinformation’ during the so-called ‘Pandemic™’, perhaps best exemplified by the persecution of Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi].

The list goes on and on [I could do that, too, for some time…]. The Lisbon Treaty obviously is an effort to put together the most enlightened elements of all existing European constitutions. Therefore, as far as these ‘fundamental civil rights’ are concerned, the Lisbon Treaty may be regarded as having taken effect already, at least in most of the EU.

It is quite enlightening to take a look at the way the lofty articles cited above are being put into practice. Take ‘human dignity’, for instance. As a result of the benefits Neoliberal Capitalism has been showering on Europe since the fall of the Berlin Wall, by day the streets of most European cities have become a living room for increasing numbers of homeless. At night these streets are transformed into open-air bedrooms, with the homeless making themselves comfortable on mattresses made out of flattened cardboard boxes [I suppose the best EU of all times™ (remember: you heard that quip here first /sarcasm) has massively improved since 2009, right?]. The streets seamlessly convert into dining rooms whenever the homeless are hungry. Then they go about scavenging for leftovers among the rubbish in dustbins and garbage containers [major improvements have been going on here since 2015, isn’t it? It makes Jean Raspail’s The Camp of Saints read like children’s literature…].

And what about the CIA rendition flights to secret torture centers in EU member states Poland and Romania, with most other EU member states giving clearance for these flights through their sovereign airspace? [I almost forgot to mention these things…] So far, some 80.000 individuals are believed to have been abducted in this way, many of these with the full collaboration of the EU and its member states [remember that the EU—much like Barack Obama—have both received the Nobel Peace (sic) Prize].

Clearly in the EU, ‘human dignity’ is not inviolable, nor is it being respected or protected [all I say is: Austria/Covidistan tried to impose a general Covid-19 ‘vaccination mandate’]. The treatment meted out to EU citizens [sic] suspected of terrorism is a violation of articles 3:1 and 6. Their physical and mental integrity is not respected in any way, and their right to liberty and security of person is trampled on, courtesy of all 27 EU member states [none of these aspects improved in the past 5 years].

All talk about human dignity, physical and mental integrity, and liberty and security of person is empty. It is empty because the security of the state (the EU and its member states) is deemed to have priority [very much in line with both Lenin and Mussolini’s glorification—I’d personally call that blasphemous—of ‘the state’]. You can find proof in the Lisbon Treaty, Title II, article 67:2:

The Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism, and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws.

The clause seems bland, but it means state security (however defined) takes precedence over the rights of individuals.

Article 8 is also very interesting. It would seem to state that one’s personal data are safe. But are they? Under current EU regulations, member states are required to keep records of all e-mail traffic and all telephone conversations. In fact it is as if the government would be reading all your letters. Many EU member states, the government can enter your computer at will and change data and records on your computer without your knowing it. All this snooping and spying is, of course, in the interest of state security, to ‘fight terrorism!’ It all looks as if the Nazi slogan ‘Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles!’ (You are nothing, your people is everything) were put into effect in today’s EU [‘no-one is safe, unless everyone is safe’].

Ah, and then there is, of course, freedom of expression. Article 11 establishes this unequivocally. Currently, all 27 EU member states have such a provision in their constitutions. Yet on at least two issues, EU citizens do not enjoy this freedom of speech. In a number of member states (Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, the Czech Republic) it is a criminal offense to publicly wonder whether six million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II. Even if you would believe that, say, no more than 4.5 million Jews were exterminated, this could land you in jail for years. It is effectively prohibited to conduct research into this topic (to try to establish how many Jews were killed during WW II), because it makes you a ‘Holocaust denier’ [remember: this is Pravda, of all places, permitting these arguments].

Nor is it allowed in some states to make any sort of remark criticizing islam. This will immediately cause you to be prosecuted for what in the US is called ‘hate speech’ [Continental European law doesn’t traditionally know such a legal category, but we’ve made gigantic strides in the past couple of years, haven’t we?]. This is happening to Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who will be put on trial next January for making allegedly disparaging remarks about Islam, whereas what he really did was assemble a movie using available footage, to demonstrate the violent nature of islamic teachings.

Free speech, or freedom of expression, is really a very simple issue, a clear-cut case. Either you have free speech, in which case you may say ANYTHING at all, or you have no free speech. It is like being pregnant: either you are, or you aren’t. It is impossible to be a ‘little bit pregnant’, just as it is impossible to have ‘some free speech’ [exceptions, terms, and conditions apply: yell, ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre absent any emergency, well, you know].

Thus in the EU today, there is NO free speech. Nor will there be any when the Lisbon Treaty takes effect. The EU crackdown on ‘illegal’ downloads, threatening anyone caught downloading copyrighted items more than three times with lifelong exclusion from internet access, can be interpreted as an indication that a major offensive against one of the few remaining vestiges of freedom is underway.

I am afraid the EU ‘constitution’ (rejected by European voters wherever it was subjected to an honest, fair referendum) in its warmed over version called ‘Lisbon Treaty’ is no more than a useless piece of paper. It is about as meaningful as the old Soviet and East German (GDR) constitutions which, come to think of it, are surprisingly similar to the Lisbon Treaty.

Article 50 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution granted all citizens freedom of speech. But whoever dared voice criticism of the system in any coherent, vocal way, was severely punished. Punishments included loss of job, domestic exile (nuclear scientist Andrei Sakharov), and assignment to a mental hospital. There was no free speech in the old Soviet Union, like there is no free speech in Europe today.

Similarities between the Lisbon Treaty and its communist predecessors are quite remarkable, for instance in the clauses on equality before the law.

Article 34 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution proclaimed full legal equality for all:

Citizens of the USSR are equal before the law, without distinction of origin, social or property status, race or nationality, sex, education, language, attitude to religion, type and nature of occupation, domicile, or other status.

The East German Constitution echoes this. Article 20:1 reads:

Independently of his nationality, race, religious ideas, social background and position, every citizen of the German Democratic Republic enjoys the same rights and duties. Freedom of religion and belief are guaranteed. All citizens are equal before the law.

Coincidentally, the Lisbon Treaty is strikingly similar: ‘everyone is equal before the law’ (article 20 [except if you’re Ursula Von der Leyen and bought modRNA poison/death juices from Albert Bourla]), and ‘any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited’ (article 21) [but it’s o.k. to afford preferential treatment to certain minority groups].

And just to remind you, in the former communist world of Europe, basic human rights such as these were formulated in the Soviet and East German constitutions, were violated on a daily basis. Henckel von Donnersmarck’s shocking movie ‘The Lives of Others’ (2006) shows this in a most penetrating way. The Stasi, inheriting brutal, effective Gestapo methods, was keeping tabs on most of the East German population. Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, it listened in on all telephone conversations, opened all envelopes and read all letters. It kept controls on anyone entering or leaving the country. An army of almost 100,000 secret agents, helped by 200,000 civilian collaborators, spied day and night on East Germany’s 16 million citizens. Most European governments today are using time-honored Stasi techniques to keep their citizens under surveillance. However, technology has advanced so impressively since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, that today’s government spooks glean more information on unwitting civilians than the most fanatical Stasi agent would have hoped for in his wildest fantasies [Iranian-Austrian comedian Michael Niavarani, some 15-odd years ago, quipped that ‘Facebook is like the Stasi on a voluntary basis’: change my mind].

As recently as 2006, a most eloquent and insightful warning against the EU and the Lisbon Treaty’s precursor, the ill-fated ‘constitution’, was given by former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky. Traumatized by the experience of living in the Soviet Union, Bukovsky noted the deeply disturbing similarities between the old Soviet Union and the blueprints for the EU super state. The European Commission, he noted, was the exact equivalent of the old Soviet Politbureau, in terms of the secretive way power was exercised, the recruitment and personalities of its members and the scope and reach of its decisions. The ‘European Parliament’ today (and under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty) is a mere rubber stamp institution, just like the ‘Supreme Soviet’ of the old USSR.

As a matter of fact, there are so many similarities between the old Soviet Union and the EU that mere coincidence is unlikely. Bukovsky argues the EU was designed to be like the old USSR. The architects of the EU? Mostly social democrats, whom Stalin quite aptly called ‘Social Fascists’.

Most Europeans have not yet understood this. Most are still indifferent, but their indifference will soon vanish when the full weight of repressive EU policies and EU taxation doing its destructive work will be felt.

Sooner than anybody now thinks, the only way to vent criticism of the EU will be in the form of jokes. No doubt many of the characteristic old Soviet jokes will be dusted off and given an anti-European Commission twist.

By that time, all Europeans except for the privileged class of ‘eurocrats’ will be prisoners in the EU. However, they will certainly have a wonderful Constitution.

---

Bottom Lines

I’m currently reading Diana West’s American Betrayal (2015, if memory serves), which is about the subversion of New Deal and Cold War America by Soviet sympathisers, spies, and agitators. It reads eerily on-time.

Closer to the topic of the above piece, I shall mention Vladimir Bukovsky and Pavel Stroilov, EUUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration (Worcester Part, 2004), which I shall read after I’m done with Ms. West’s book.

Even closer, I need to mention that I’ve worked for that kind of ‘machine’, serving for a year in the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2008-09). I elected not to pursue a diplomatic career (my wife calls me very much ‘disagreeable’ and considers me ‘a most terrible diplomat’), but I’ve taught in various IR, poli-sci, and ‘European Studies’ curricula over the years.

The issues mentioned here are, of course, anathema. I do try to alert the students to these highly controversial issues, although I consider my influence rather miniscule. The weight of all the ‘standard textbooks’—and the overwhelmingly ‘positive’, if ill-informed, stance of my colleagues is nothing short of: astounding.

Still, when all is said and done, I recall that ‘old’ Cold War-era joke:

An American asks a Russian: ‘Do you have newspapers in the USSR?’

The Russian responds: ‘Sure, Pravda, Izvestija…’

The American asks once more: ‘Do you read them if you wish to learn about the USSR?’

The Russian replies: ‘Heavens, no, they all lie; if I wish to learn about the USSR, I’ll read the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the like.’

To which the American reacts: ‘Do you also read the NYT and WaPo if you wish to learn about the US?’

The Russian responds: ‘Heavens no, all newspapers lie about their own countries; to learn about the USA, I read Pravda, Izvestija…’

So, when all is said and done, and with the benefit of hindsight some 15 years after the Lisbon Treaty went into effect, all that can be said, bitterly, is:

This particularly bad joke is on all Europeans.

The EU needs to go.