The “New European Soviet”

I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.

Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen — both American and Lithuanian — about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective — to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate — the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, “I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal.” On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, “I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world.” He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: “I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a ‘common European home’ finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe....”

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn’t the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

In their powerful exposé, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history.” In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about. It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTA-FTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d’état in the Americas.

The “European project,” as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a “free trade” agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, “slow-motion” political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.’”

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, over-arching “community” independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as “integration,” “harmonization,” and “convergence.” In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain’s major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. “Twenty years ago, when the process began,” he wrote, “there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation.”

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press — which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

• Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU’s newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.

• Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction — from the member states to the central government.

• Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.

• Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens — including terrorists — to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe — much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.

• Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.

• Destroying agriculture. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.

• Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to “impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable.” That means direct taxes on individuals.

• Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional “common market” for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.” At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the “ensemble of connections” while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the “new world order” Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU — “integration,” “harmonization,” “convergence” — to describe their “American project.” They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan — or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the “new American Soviet.”

"The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo."

Hysterically funny nonsense!

Can I explain to my American friends that socialism in Europe, especially the UK, is a different concept to the one Americans think of. There is no real socialists in power.

Tony Blair calls himself a socialist, when he is no such thing. He is hardly an enemy of America now is he?

Be Cool!

4 posted on 01/10/2005 4:14:58 PM PST by John_Wheatley

NONSENSE! Because Blair joins Bush, Blair does not automatically become a Libertarian Margret Thatcher.
(The same as Stalin did not become a freedom-loving lamb because he cooperated with the Western Allies.)

most of the european intelligenzia in power belong to the "protest generation" from the 60s.

it's all the same: call it socialism-light or call it socialism/marxism/dialecticism/hegelianism/communism/islamosocialism ...

"Competitors, yeah sure, we compete against each other for business etc. but not a "threat" to us militarily."

Unfortunately, the language coming out of various French ministers is anything but friendly.

My opinion is also shared by certain people in the British Government who see the EU as imposing on their sovereignty and they question the future motives of the French & Germans. Lord Privy Seal Peter Hain took acute umbrage at a French finance ministers public comment that the purpose of the EU "is the economic and military displacement of the United States".

Even Colin Powell took umbrage at that unfriendly comment.

Considering the minister was not rebuked or censured for the comment then, in diplomatic terms, he has clearly stated the position of the French Government.

Which is unfriendly to the US.

"I think most Europeans have not read up, or feel that the creation of a gigantic trading bloc is more important than the fundamental rights of man"

And there are huge advantages to a gigantic trading block. It is the other things that go with the constitution (if adopted) that would cause me concern. Heck, I would at least read it so I could know what I was voting on. To be frank, gutting through the 300+ pages of the proposed EU constitution was painful. It was clearly written by lawyers for lawyers in that confusing legal-ese that they write in. I didn't understand a lot of it, but I'm not the brightest bulb in the socket.

But it was clear to even a dummy like me was that Brussels would assume a tremendous amount of power in the new state with the individual states able to address only those things that Brussels chose not to (Stated specifically). Quite a change from the current set-up.

None of the Europeans on this thread will answer my question, "Have you read the proposed EU constitution?" and I will take it that NONE of them have. This has been my experience talking to folks in Italy, Germany, England, and Scotland. At best, these people were only able to repeat things they heard from politicians, read in a magazine or newspaper, or heard on (state funded) TV.

Clearly the document is not meant to be accessable to average people. One thing reading it did do, was leave me thankful for the amazing US constitution where rights are inalienable and understandable to everyone.

"California were never independent nations."

The Bear Flag Republic was a briefly independent entity that resulted from the Revolt of 1846. The Republic was diplomatically recognized by US forces and a duly authorized plenopotentiary representative of the Russian Tsar so it is considered to have been a 'real' independent country as it was properly recognized by a disinterested third party power. Oddly, the Mexican Governor Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo favored annexation to the United States over the anti-American white settlers who wanted slavery to be legal in California. Vallejo alligned his interests with the USA and made possible a bloodless takeover of California by John C. Fremont who raised the Stars & Stripes in place of the Bear Flag.

Vallejo was later granted a pension by the State Legislature for his vision and loyalty to the United States.

The historical fact of how the Californios supported annexation to the USA also makes a lie of the myth that the USA 'stole' California from Mexico. The Californios (mostly of Spanish descent) wanted no part of the corrupt government in Mexico City and Vallejo actually raised a standing army in Sonoma to defend against the predations of the Mexican Army when it would raid farms for supplies and etc.

So, albeit briefly, California was an independent country.

The Bear Flag is now our state flag and that gives California the appropriate distinction of being the only state in the Union with a Red Star on its flag.

I'm not saying the EU is perfect, very far from it but some of the benefits are:

I do not need to wear a uniform to kill fellow Europeans. (THE most important reason)

That attitude is not new! The Oxford Union, a political club of Oxford University, issued a resolution in 1932 that stated: "..this House will not die for King or Country". A fat lot of good that did the students and faculty, or the pacifists that died by the bombs that fell during the "Blitz". As well, the unions at the time, did not want to train craftsmen in trades that would help Britain rearm should it become necessary. The unions were afraid that it might create an excess of skilled labor with a commensurate lowering of wages and subsequent reduction of union power. Of course, looking back upon those days, perhaps Nazi slave labor would have been preferable. At least the Nazi's would keep you alive and secure (if not comfortable). Which seems to be your particular, paramount, concern.

All of the EU nations belonged to the now defunct League of Nations. Fat lot of good it did them then, as well.

Will your grandchildren, or great grandchildren speak Walloon, Flemish, Arabic, Farsi or Pakistani and worship Allah, all because great-grand-dad worshipped security?

Probably not...but your great-grandchildren will all be speaking spanish! :-)

I already do and so do my kids. However, we are not compeled to do so by the United Nations, (at least not yet and we'd like to keep it that way), but only by personal desire and economic advantage. Not unlike an Englishmen speaking French, German and/or Italian to increase the sales territory of his company or the utility of his trade. The operative words here are "compelled" and "personal desire". If you think that it will be the "Gringo", (of which I am one, despite the latin handle "elbucko") then you know very little of the demographic dynamics actually taking place here in the Southwestern United States. It is actually the Spanish speaker that is learning English, more than the English speaker is learning Spanish. In the fullness of time, Mexico will be a state of the US. Not in my lifetime, but probably in my kids.

England, on the other hand has a different problem, it's not really "European" in culture. I have been fortunate to have spent considerable time in the UK and find it more like America than either Austrailia, New Zealand, or Ottowa and Quebec Canada. A decorated RAF Group Captain, of fighter pilot renown, once told me that the biggest mistake that England made after WWII was not to petitition the US Congress for the UK to become the 49th state. He wasn't kidding. He had trained to fly fighters in Oklahoma, USA in 1940-41. He had travelled extensively in the Us and found it more like English culture than other English speaking countries. He said he did not want to be a European, even though the geographical proximity dictated such. In a semi-prayer, he intoned that the Almighty would be generous, indeed, if He would move the British Isles about 3,000 miles to the So. West.

I could go for that, if the UK would let the socialists off in Europe, before moving the island west.

By the way, I am not one of those Americans, that you seem so concerned about, that worry about whether the world likes us or not. I am one of those Americans that dosen't care at all what the world thinks. Even Europe.

In 1932 Germany had no air force, no armor, no significant naval forces, and no one in the world imagined they could ever be a threat again after the evisceration of Germany by the Versailles Treaty.

Seven years later they rolled across Europe defeating the French and British in a scant few weeks.

Now we'll have a united Europe with a Constitution that guarantees no personal rights whatsoever, no checks, no balances. The EU Parliament, on a vote, can award dictatorial powers to another Hitler.

I'd personally prefer to see the EU as a global partner but Europe has a pretty bad track record of being trustworthy.

The French see the EU as a superpower to challenge the US as an economic and military superpower and they make no secret of this.

Just the same as the Japanese plans for Pearl Harbor were no secret starting in 1923.

People warned about Japan and no one listened.

The EU is being conceived as a counterpoint to the USA - not as some sort of egalitarian paradise for Euroweenies.

Therefore, they will always be but one election away from a dictatorship.

Times change...but that is like saying because America tried to invade Canada in the past there is still a danger it would happen again.

By the way, when America invaded "Canada", Canada was not Canada, but part of the then, British Empire". Canada was not a sovereign nation at the time, nor was it the Canada that is known today because France still owned Quebec. Your postulations using inaccurate history are about as accurate as your prognostications regarding the EU.

The US does not need to worry about Canada invading the US because Canada has no military to speak of. They don't need one and neither does much of the Western world, including NATO and EU countries, because the USA is willing to use its military on their behalf. That is why you can afford socialism, you don't need to defend yourselves because you know the US will.

The real worry America has regarding Canada, the UK and the EU is that these countries won't regard radical Islam with the caution that it deserves. You people didn't think the Nazi's were serious until they dropped a bomb on St Pauls.

Can you learn to say; "Allah be Praised"?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.