The European Union - A Threat to Nationalism

by Fredrik Haerne

June 27, 2002

Crooked European politicians have a very efficient weapon when it comes to making their populations accept a new EU undertaking. They simply tell us that it is inevitable, that since all other countries want it to happen it is going to happen, that the process is too big for just one country to halt. Since the populations in different EU countries have little contact with each other, whereas the politicians from different countries meet all the time, it is difficult to see what other Europeans really think of the new idea. Most people are likely to simply take their leaders' word for it that the whole thing is inevitable.

Whenever you hear politicians use the word "inevitable" it is time to listen closely to what is being said, and what is not. My experience is that this word is usually intended to silence a debate before it gets started. During the Cold War, socialists told Europeans it was "inevitable" that Western Europe would be ruled by socialism in one shape or the other, and that the Soviet Union would be a much more important source of inspiration than the United States. After that they told us that the darkening of Sweden is "inevitable," because "everybody else is doing it."

Now, two of the newest additions to our inevitable future should be watched closely. The first is the increasing power of the European Union over its member states. The second is the Enlargement. I would like to discuss both of these, as they are of paramount importance to all White nationalists. Our success or defeat in one country affects our chances everywhere, and so we should have at least a brief understanding of the various problems we face in all parts of the world.

The Enlargement and the power transfer to the EU are actually closely linked. In order to truly understand this, we must understand how the EU works at the present.

A federal EU?

"It is the European Union's nature to continue to evolve forever," says Italian Romano Prodi, the socialist head of the European Commission. This makes me wonder: is this nature a result of the will of the peoples, or of the will of the bureaucrats? Is this ever-developing nature needed to keep the Union functioning (and what a strange Union that would make!), or a nature that will eventually cause it to explode, like an inflated balloon?

For the record, I was all in favor of Sweden's joining the European Union in the nineties, when Swedish membership was discussed and voted on in a referendum. How could I not be? The ones leading opposition against it were the communist rabble, who have a knee-jerk instinct to hate anything created by a large number of people in suits. All conservative leaders were for it, and the only conservative member of parliament who was against joining was kicked out of his party. We were told the EU would be good for our economy, and since we conservatives had been taught to look at politics as a matter of pure, short-sighted economic thinking, few were questioning the wisdom of voting Yes.

True, free trade among White nations is good for our economy. The European Union was to set minimum conditions for production of goods: how much jam to use in fruit, what safety standards to use for motorbikes, etc. -- so that all member countries could allow imports from all others without letting their consumers down. We wanted that, especially since a small country like Sweden is heavily dependent upon international trade, and the other West European nations together made up our biggest market. Looking back it is hard to comprehend, however, how gullible we were to think that the European Union would remain at a modest level.

There were other agreements involved as well, of course. Citizens of one member country would be allowed to live and work in another country, without having to acquire a visa. The police forces would cooperate in combatting international crime - a Europol was to be created. Common environmental standards would be worked out, as well as a common set of foreign policies. All these were things that could be welcomed or at least accepted. But from the very beginning there were also things we were not being told.

We were not told that over seventy percent of the EU's budget would be used to subsidize farmers, mostly in France and other Mediterranean countries, putting a strain on all our economies. Nevertheless, this is what happened, since the agricultural lobby in the EU is immense. This money drain is not the way to encourage good relations between north and south.

Neither were we told that our legislature would be under constant threat of increasing involvement from the European Union. What possible reason could there be for, say, common laws about immigration or welfare? Why would there be a need for a common ban on the death penalty? Are things that the separate nations can decide on their own not better left to the separate nations? Should this Union really turn into a super-state, and a project of money transfers from one group to another? This last seems to be the only idea socialists have ever come up with in macro economics.

There is even talk of a "federal Europe," which, when you remove the dramatic wording used to describe it, means a confederation. If that plan would ever be brought to fruition, I am prepared to bet my last Euro that it will soon be turned into a United States of Europe, but lacking a Constitution to protect us. (The "Constitution" suggested for the EU so far concentrates not on restrictions of its power, but on restrictions of freedom. For example, one clause says that people would not be allowed to work too much overtime. Another is about the minimum welfare you should receive as unemployed. Fortunately the different parts of the establishment are still fighting over who can cram most of their own policies into this document).

The Ministry Council

The Ministry Council is the reason socialists love to transfer more power to the EU. It is important to know that the European Parliament, with elected representatives from each country, is mostly an advisory body, the actual powers of which are heavily restricted; it must give its clearance to the budget designed by the Commission, and it can dissolve the Commission, but it cannot do much else except talking.

It is the Ministry Council that actually creates EU law. When matters of finance are discussed, the ministers of finance vote about those laws; when matters of agriculture are debated, the ministers of agriculture vote, and so on. Then, the decisions are passed on to the European Commission to realize: this is a body of unelected bureaucrats, with one representative from each small country, and two from the largest.

You understand now socialist enthusiasm for the Ministry Council? For a very long time, the majority of governments in Western Europe were socialist. Some of them were minority governments, but that didn't matter when they met in the Council. There, they could make laws and regulations without any annoying parliamentary debates, without having to be close to their domestic press corps, and -- best of all -- without giving small parties or the opposition any say in things.

What a wonderful system! No wonder socialist columnists everywhere became drunk with power, and urged the quick transfer of this aphrodisiac to the legislative body that seemed to be permanently under socialist control.

Nowadays the political scene has changed. As I write this the governments in Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark are conservative, and the socialists are not so happy anymore. Remember that Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are not part of the EU, and that British economic policies are much farther to the right than in other EU countries, which leaves precious few member states with true socialist policies.

No reason for the Jewish media masters to worry much, however: these "conservative" governments are on their side on all issues that truly matter. They won't try to make the dark flow of immigrants move in the other direction, they will only try to slow it a little, at the most. When socialists return to power, they can resume their race-destroying plans as if they had never left office. Neither will conservatives ever try to reinstall the free speech already lost, they will only be more reluctant to come up with new restrictions on it.

Furthermore, conservatives won't try to change the plans for Enlargement. In fact, they are stonewalling the issue, just like the socialists, and just like our media masters. The fact is that neither the majority of Swedes nor many others want the Enlargement, and I think that if the issue would be debated openly, even more people would be reluctant to accept this gigantic enterprise. But there is no debate. There is no debate at all.

Plans for Enlargement

The Enlargement does not include plans for a more functional and cost-efficient EU, so that the rest of our West European nations would be willing to join us. Establishment politicians are not interested in that. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland will join soon enough anyway, they believe. It is "inevitable."

No, Enlargement means to include East European countries. This will happen in three separate waves, where the countries best prepared for the transfer of power to Brussels will be moved in just a few years from now, eventually followed by the remaining candidates. The candidates range from Estonia to Malta. There are no plans of bringing in Russia, but it has been discussed recently. There is even serious talk of bringing in Turkey, and also Morocco, Tunisia and -- of course -- Israel. Israel's joining the EU is doubtful, however; legal scholars tell me that if Sweden had received the same economic concessions that Israel has squeezed out of the Union, we would never have had any reason to join. Therefore, since they have picked the raisins out of the pie already, I think Israel will be content with the status quo. (It already has a de facto political alliance with the United States, after all.)

You didn't know this? Of course not, what mainstream newspaper would write about it? None over here, at least. I have lawyers among my relatives, who have read about this in the lawyer union's magazine. I try to always look closely at facts before I make any claims about politics, but in this case they are hard to find, and I have to take my relatives' word for it. But I digress.

Before I continue, I want to make clear that my opposition toward Enlargement does not stem from contempt of Slavic Aryans and their cultures. If I had any such contempt, it would be overwhelmed a thousand times by my anger at the dark races that threaten us all. There are actually several things about Slavic countries that I appreciate. For one thing, several of them provide a much more open climate for discussing nationalism, Jews, and other taboo topics. There are East European newspapers that write about nationalist matters openly, and I have learned a lot through a Slavic acquintance who has such sources mailed to him. One newspaper that I personally recommend is the Russian Pravda. The free atmosphere here is foreign to my own country, and it gives you an idea of what our own media could have been like.

Slavs, Romanics and Germanics are all part of the Aryan family, and I look with high expectations to a future where our Eastern cousins will rise from their communist-created misfortune and become a force to reckon with. As David Duke once wrote, they could be the White world's best hope. Besides, Baltic women are cute.

The fact is, however, that Enlargement should be, and is, opposed by nationalists in both Western and Eastern Europe. It is a development that would inevitably turn the EU into a superstate. It would not benefit the pan-Aryan and pan-European ideologies at all, but could actually prove devastating to us. It simply must not happen.

A crippled Council and Commission

To see that, let us have another look at the legislative and executive powers in the Union. The Ministry Council now has fifteen people voting about every matter, but with enlargement it would have twenty-five or more. The European Commission would increase the same way. One might not consider these to be very large numbers, given that the legislative body in Sweden, the Riksdag, has 349 members and is still functioning. The fact is, however, that given the lack of a mutual ground for debate for EU citizens, given that we all live in separate countries with separate languages, media, etc, decision-making is already a very slow and tedious process.

There is simply too much suspicion, and too many differing interests. There are too many separate political cultures. There is too much bureaucracy working for every national group in Brussels, and they work too inefficiently. All sides, nationalists not the least, agree that this "giant with clay feet" would become virtually impossible to govern with even more ministers and commissioners moving in, their staffs in tow. Maybe this sounds like a good thing, but we have already given this Union more than it's able to handle efficiently.

But don't worry. As usual, the establishment provides us with solutions to the problems it has created. And as usual, the solutions require us to give up a little more control of our own destinies. I will not discuss all the various ideas here, but they all include giving more power to a smaller elite. To give power to the European Parliament is out of the question for these people. It will probably happen from time to time in smaller matters, but not in the important ones.

Romano Prodi recently suggested a stronger Commission, with an "A" team and a "B" team of members. The idea of a stronger Commission has been with the EU for a long time. Worrisome when you think of that the European Commission consists of appointed bureaucrats playing the executive role normally reserved for elected governments.

Another idea is to have a "President of Europe," elected by all Europeans. Now, this idea is truly absurd, and the fact that it is still entertained says a lot. No Europeans would vote for a president coming from outside their own cultural region. No one, absolutely no one, outside the elected president's home country would feel he were represented by him.

Eventually, one of the ideas for an elite running things will be picked, and it will be an elite of establishment members armed with ever-increasing powers to walk over member states in things that are not its business. It is the most efficient way, you see. And besides, it is probably "inevitable."

Immigrants

Another reason enlargement is a lousy idea is that it would lead to a gigantic population movement from communism-empoverished Eastern Europe to Western Europe. Sure, the establishment politicians tell us it will only be "a trickle," but didn't Kennedy say the same thing about the U.S. Immigration Act of 1965?

There is talk of restrictions on most of the immigration for a limited number of years, but I have never trusted such half-hearted laws, and I won't start now. The wave will come, and it will not consist of nationalist Slavs. They will stay at home, where they do the most good. It will consist of a large number of fortune seekers, who will press down our minimum wages, strain our welfare systems to the breaking point, and steer our politics irrevocably away from a nationalist awakening.

Already Balkanese criminals control a large share of the drug trade in Sweden, and of the arms smuggling business. Already their gangs behave like the worst Arabs and Negroes. This is not the way to foster pan-European sentiments; the last thing on these peoples' minds is nationalism, and that fact is not hard to see. I have never forgotten the words of a member of the Serb nationalist movement: "After the war our young men talk about going to the West in great numbers. The word is that if you have an education, you go to the United States. If you don't have an education but are willing to work hard, you go to Australia. If you don't have an education and don't want to work hard, you go to Sweden."

Wonderful Swedish welfare system! It brings us just the right kind of people to boost the socialists' electoral results. Since their support among the Swedish population is slowly eroding, they stay in their comfortable armchairs by a quick and easy betrayal of their own people. The communist party is much more outspoken about it than the Social Democrats, but they all still play the same game. They know just what kind of people they want from the East, and they will get them.

There are, of course, East Europeans who are intent on working hard and leading decent lives. I like these people, but they must stay in their own countries. They can come to Sweden a few at a time, like other White immigrants, but not in such large numbers that they cannot be absorbed into our own people and culture. We work best living like neighbors, not when we are stepping on each others' toes.

People who don't feel like Swedes will never support a nationalist awakening here, which will have to take the shape of loyalty to Sweden before it can express pan-Aryan thoughts. For one thing, they can never trust such an awakening to result only in the expulsion of non-Whites, while accepting East Europeans. And Swedish nationalists can never be sure on which side the East European immigrants would stand. We can be sure, however, that they won't feel loyalty to the Swedish flag and the people it represents, so the possibility of finding recruits among them is small, while the socialists have a much easier time with that. They can divide and rule, together with their media masters.

I strongly suspect this is the reason the established parties want the Enlargement. It will be a severe blow to the rise of nationalism in West European politics before it has even gotten off the ground. It will also be a serious blow to regional identities, and a great leap forward for the New World Order.

Next step will possibly be to bring in Turkey, if some of our political forces have their way. This time the Turks would not have to lay siege to Vienna.

FREDRIK HAERNE

Back to VNN Main Page