Joining Europe (postmodern Eurospeak for joining the EU) is the mantra repeated ad nauseam from Belgrade to Sarajevo to Podgorica to Skopje. Behold (from AltRight) the joys of belonging to the institution headed by President Herman van Rompuy (l.)...
Nigel Farage, a British member of the European Parliament, was fined an equivalent of $4,000 on March 2 for "insulting" the new European Union President Herman van Rompuy and refusing to apologize. In a memorable performance in Strasbourg ten days earlier, the Euroskeptic MEP told the former Beligian prime minister that he had "all the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk":
"We were told that when we had a president, we'd see a giant global political figure, a man who would be the political leader for 500 million people, the man that would represent all of us all of us on the world stage, the man whose job was so important that of course you're paid more than President Obama. Well, I'm afraid what we got was you... The question I want to ask is: 'Who are you?' I'd never heard of you, nobody in Europe had ever heard of you."
Mr. Farage's tirade was well worth his ten days' MEP allowance. It put some spotlight on the inner workings of a monstrous bureaucracy. It gave a welcome boost to the popularity of his UK Independence Party (UKIP), which advocates Britain's withdrawal from the EU and opposes the Tory-Labour therapeutic-social-democratic duopoly. It provided a rare spark of rhetorical flair in an institution otherwise reminiscent of the Supreme Soviet, circa 1957.
But let us first consider Farage's passing reference, during his response to Van Rompuy's inaugural address, to Belgium as a "non-country," "an artificial construction" which is "breaking up." The bien-pensants were offended with that part of his statement, too, but they cannot refute the facts.
Belgium was created by treaty, ex nihilo, by the Concert of Europe 180 years ago, mainly on Britain's insistence as a buffer keeping the Channel ports neutral. (This consideration was deemed so important at Westminster in August 1914 that Germany's violation of Belgian neutrality prompted Britain to join France and Russia, thus turning yet another European war into the first truly global affair.)
Composed of Dutch-speaking Flemings and French-speaking Waloons, the "country" is less natural and less organically integrated than Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia had ever been. Most of its inhabitants identify with their ethno-lingustic group and feel no loyalty to, or affection for, the state as such. Belgium is an entity with statehood -- alebit with limited sovereignty under the EU writ -- but without nationhood, or shared memories, myths, or epics. It is noteworthy that the most famous Belgians in history were Eddy Merckx the cyclist, Leon Degrelle the SS Standartenfuehrer, and... well, as of two weeks ago, Mr. van Rompuy himself. (Of course, all those 16th and 17th century Flemish painters were as "Belgian" as Peter the Great was "Soviet," or Brian Boru -- "British").
More important is Farage's exposure of an undemocratic nomenklatura that produces the van Rompys on demand. Their mindset was aptly summarized by van Rompuy's own boast in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit that we have entered the era of "global governance": "The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet." Dixit. That one sentence is the key to understanding this little man, insignificant as he is intrinsically, and grasping the agenda of those who had made him what he is. Van Rompuy owes his position to the enactment of the Lisbon straitjacket -- by hook and by crook-- and to a backroom Franco-German deal.
The European Union is run by a coalition of multicultural fanatics, post-national technocrats, neo-Marxists and crooks. They are committed to a federal superstate, no less brazenly than the Comrades east of the Wall had been committed to the Peoples' Democracies between 1945 and 1989. In their world, only an EU freed from the obsolete shackles of national parliaments and wily electorates can guarantee the fulfillment of their ideological vision and, more importantly, the protection of their power and privileges in perpetuity.
Once hailed as a mechanism for overcoming deadly rivalries and increasing economic efficiencies, the institution Van Rompuy "heads" has morphed into a giant tool of social and political engineering. Its now defunct Constitution pointedly excluded Christianity from the Preamble, but introduced references to "equality" and "non-discrimination," and invoked the obligation to combat "social exclusion" and respect "diversity." Brussels is making opposition to the ongoing demographic change of the Old Continent not only undesirable but also illegal -- to the benefit of unassimilable, overwhelmingly Muslim multitudes, filled with contempt for their host-organism that breeds the urge to conquer it. The term "Eurabia," introduced as an intellectual concept three decades ago by Amerophobe French intellectuals, is on the verge of becoming real.
Various multiethnic states (imperial Russia, the Habsburg Monarchy, pre-World War II Kingdom of Yugoslavia) have been labeled -- often unfairly -- as "prisons of nations." That designation applies far more aptly to the European Union. Mr. Van Rompuy may look banal -- heck, he is banal -- but that makes him no less dangerous, or evil, than Tony Blair or Joschka Fischer. The "grey mouse" has been blinded by the sudden light, for which all true Europeans owe a word of thanks to Nigel Farage.
The Harlot of Brussels
"AnteBragd" was upset by my article on the illustrious M. Van Rompuy. His/her arguments are incorrect, illogical or just plain silly. They are worthy of a response, however, because millions of Europeans are being force-fed such platitudes every day - as relentlessly, in fact, as we are being force-fed les victimes du jour by The Morning Edition...
- "Just because a lot of the paleos repeatedly claims that the EU is some kind "prison of nations" and rally or mock it by calling it EUSSR does not make it so. It is not so, by the simple reason, that all member states has [sic!] chosen to become members."
"Chosen"? Just ask the Danes or the Irish. When the people of a state say "no" to membership, or to an ever-tighter Union once their country is inside the Lager, they will be subjected to relentless pressure by the ruling elite to change their mind and say "yes"; but if and when they do succumb - as the Irish did to Lisbon last year, having been subjected to a massive barrage of Brussels-endowed Agitprop - now, that decision is treated as irreversible. The Euro-elite treats "democracy" as the process of manufacturing ideologically desirable outcomes determined in advance of the ostensible decision. The failure to produce one equals the failure of democracy; ergo the process will be fine-tuned and reactivated until it performs as expected.
- It is not only silly to call it EUSSR, but also insulting to almost half of Europe, who has struggled to free themselves from the Soviet Union and have aspired to once again become members of the "European Family".
As for the "European family," Brussels explicitly and resolutely rejects any suggestion that such a thing exists. It smacks of blood ties, collective memories, and emotional bonds of culture, faith and kinship that are literally verboten in their "Europe."
- When the EU uses formulations like "respect for diversity" it does not have to interpreted as the very same ideas the average liberal professor is committed to.
Really? Well, here are five key red flags that the EU formally defines as "Islamophobic":
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. Islam is seen as separate and "Other."
3. Islam is seen as inferior to the West, barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4. Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, linked to terrorism, engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. Islam is seen as a political ideology.
Needless to say, each and every one of those five "red flags" is accepted as true or reasonable by each and every sane and decent person out here in the Dar al-Harb.
- There are of course a lot of legitimate critique that can be raised against the EU, but childish rants about "EUSSR", "Neo-Marxists" or "multicultural fanatics" does not count as such.
Oh, dear... Let's see what "counts," and let's leave all rhetoric aside.
As I wrote in Chronicles almost two years ago, under the "European Arrest Warrant," which is to be implemented under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, every citizen or visitor of a member country the European Union will be liable to arrest and extradition at the behest of a judge in any other EU member-country, under one of 32 vaguely defined categories of "crime."
Those 32 offenses, according to the drafters of the Treaty, "if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant." The list of 32 offenses includes criminal conspiracy, terrorism, human trafficking, child pornography, smuggling of drugs, weapons and explosives, fraud and money laundering, murder, kidnapping, forgery, etc.
It also includes "racism and xenophobia," as well as "computer crime" and "crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court." The local police will be obliged to arrest the indicted person and have him transferred to the issuing judge's court for trial-and they will have to act regardless of their country's judicial system or penal code. Once the person is at the local court, he will be at the mercy of the local laws.
The inclusion of "racism and xenophobia" brings an emotion, a sentiment, into the category of major crimes, such as murder, arson etc, which is a legal and logical absurdity. The European Arrest Warrant does not define "racism and xenophobia" as such, but its drafters have relied on the European Commission's "Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia" which criminalizes "belief in race colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining aversion to individuals." The Decision mandates that "racist and xenophobic behaviour must constitute an offence in all Member States and be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties." This framework decision will apply to all "offences" committed within the territory of the European Union, or "for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State."
Some Europe, some family...