The European Project is not in Britain’s interests – nor is it in America’s. It is time the Obama administration woke up to this reality, and stood on the side of freedom and sovereignty in Europe, instead of backing a fundamentally undemocratic and unaccountable European Project.[1]Centralization regardless of the cost! Once in, never out. Hmmm . . . . Did anyone think to provide for secession just in case things went wrong with the nickel and dime E.U. experiment based on, um, certain historical events? Or does "logic" support movement to world government that's one-way traffic only?
WWII was fought for freedom from fascism (though not communism) and German control of Europe. Now, Europe has the latter, whether anyone wants to admit it, and rushes to embrace the former. Not the same Germany by a long shot, it goes without saying, and congrats to Germans who are reaping the rewards of being a generally serious people apart from their decision to import millions of Muslims.
And the fascist part wasn't their idea. It's just the natural result of larger and larger government and the concomitant dilution of popular sovereignty. U.S. variant alive, well, and on steroids.
Cue sound effect of ratchet on gear wheel. Tink. Tink.
You just have to appreciate the not-so-delicious irony of Europe ending up where it is. Over 100 millions dead at the hands of totalitarians in the last century (not even counting war dead) and good luck finding all but a tiny majority of Europeans or Brits with any kind of antibodies to assaults on their liberty or on their centuries-old cultures.
Or to foreign domination. Europe, the abattoir of the 20th century, consumed the flower of its youth in slaughter that beggars the imagination. And the result has been that the loved ones and descendants of the dead have been condemned to live out their lives in crime-ridden, dysfunctional, disintegrating, third-world slums where citizens who speak the truth about what happened are hounded by the government and terrorist scum are set for life on the dole.
Is this what they envisioned in those desperate years when they and all the world heard that voice of hope on the radio, "Ici Londres!" or "This is London calling"? Craven surrender of the home country?
Cue BBC Beethoven theme, fade to crappy Arab music, and cut to video of gigantic London mosque and in-your-face, gypsy squatter invasions.
Most of our European cousins lurched forward into the arms of a smug authoritarianism that became practiced in fleecing and betraying its subjects. Whatever was on the telly after VE day must have been pretty God damn amazing stuff for people not to notice the hijacking under way.
Good luck to Britain and, hopefully, its abandonment of the E.U. foolishness. Subsidiarity is a concept that needs to be looked into more. 65 years of global government bullshit is enough. That's a fine Anglo-Saxon term, or close enough, that sometimes just gets the job done right. I don't know how to say it in Swahili or Arabic.
Yet.
Notes
[1] "Barack Obama lectures Britain on EU membership: the US president looks arrogant as well as clueless." By Nile Gardiner, The Telegraph, 12/19/12.
3 comments:
Nitpick: Part of the reason for entering WWII was to prevent the Communists from getting all the credit for defeating the Nazis (and consequently ruling all of Europe). In other words, it was partly about freedom from Communism.
Lend Lease Act was enacted March 11, 1941. Germany didn't attack the Soviet Union until three months later, on June 22, 1941. FDR wanted desperately to get into the war before that but even then the U.S. didn't declare war against Germany until December 11, 1941.
Moreover, the warm affection that FDR had for Stalin and the huge amount of materiel we sent the Soviets hardly bespeaks hostility towards the U.S.S.R. U.S. film propaganda for domestic consumption was slavish in its adulation of the Soviets. "Mission to Moscow" was a disgusting collection of lies about our Ambassador Joseph Davies and what a wonderful place the Soviet Union was and it was specifically intended to rally support for aid to the it.
If anything, the Americans have been quite ambivalent toward communism, and some positively slobber over it as can be seen from "president" Obama's appointment of Van Jones to a position in his administration. To this day, it is a major goal of the left in the U.S., the Democrat Party being our left-wing party, of course, to do all in its power to attack anyone who points out that FDR's key adviser at Yalta was the communist Alger Hiss.
Eugene Lyon's The Red Decade is a chilling account of the degree to which America was infiltrated by communists and FDR himself, an admirer of Italian fascism, even said that come of his best friends were communists and what's the big deal about communism. Alas, I can't put my finger on the exact quote.
I am aware of no statement by FDR that showed that he had the tiniest aversion to communism. If he admired Mussolini of "All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State" fame, why would he have had any aversion to communists, let alone have gone to war in order to discredit them somehow?
PS - The U.S. went to war against Germany in December 1941 but it was far from clear until after the German defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943 that the Soviets would prevail over the Germans. Even in December 1941 there was no urgency whatsoever about a possible Soviet victory.
Post a Comment