Another Reason Why The EU Must Die

George-Orwell

It astonishes me how most have not understood (yet) what kind of monster we are all nurturing with our tax money. 

Brussels is becoming more and more a supranational Big Brother (the dictator, of course), where the opinions about freedom prevailing at any time – and widely shaped from extremist interest groups, perverts’ lobbies, and easy populism of the day – are happily imposed upon hundreds of million of people, whilst we are told this is salutary, and for our own good. 

The latest (or one of the latest) madness is the proposal of some former EU Heads of State to create a “surveillance unit” for “intolerant” citizen.

The Gestapo mentality of this is mind-boggling: no judicial control, no suspicion of criminal offence (which would require a criminal investigation; which is not what this is about): a purely administrative surveillance machine, spying on the lives of all those they don’t like and tarnishing them with the official EU stamp of “intolerance”.

How seriously incapable these people are of understanding freedom is shown at the very clear words of the report:

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”

This thinking is the democratic understanding of people raised in Communist states (a number of the proposers actually are). The very principle of tolerance demands that, whenever tolerance is offered – and it must not be offered in everything – it protect everyone, including the intolerant; then otherwise it is not tolerance at all. 

The second part of the statement quoted above shows all the absurdity of the thinking: if freedom of expression is not tolerated there is no freedom of expression, period. 

I grew up in a country where the freedom of expression was limited only in very extreme manifestations that went against the very grain of common sense and pointed to an system of values superior to democracy (say: blasphemy, whereas this is meant as blasphemy of the Lord, not of Manitu or the Great Teapot In The Sky), but was otherwise considered the very blood of freedom; where it was normal to find publications from extreme right to extreme left; where you could – and still can – openly deny the Holocaust if you feel so inclined –  which I find stupid; but it’s not for me to demand that people don’t say stupid things – without any fear of being put under surveillance by some obscure apparatchik; and where you could buy old racist, Nazi-like publications like “La Difesa della Razza” from street sellers without anyone taking scandal. I marched into the then Rizzoli bookstore in Rome and asked to buy “Mein Kampf“, just to see if I could. I could. The very courteous employee did not even raise an eyebrow.

This, my friends, is freedom.

In this XXI century, the dictatorship of “tolerance” is advancing fast; words do not mean anything anymore; “tolerance” is a one-way road, and this is openly admitted and proudly stated.

The proposers of this measure are all former Heads of State or Government, either directly or indirectly democratically elected. They are either to stupid to understand freedom, or cynically ride the tiger of “intolerance with the tolerant” to pursue their own interests. They must be really deranged in order not to see where this leads to: more power for the Gaystapo.

It tells you something about the erosion of the very concept of freedom that is taking place in the minds of the people;  an erosion positively driven by supranational entities (like the UN, and the EU) presenting themselves as the good teachers slowly raising us kids to correct understanding. There is no tell you what a danger this creates, as measures adopted in one single country would cause immediate suspicion in many others, whilst the EU allows Brussels committees to work as incubators of illiberal policies that are then imposed on all countries as a European policy by way of decisions of organs whose degree of representativeness can be defined laughable at its best, and too far detached from the people of the European Union anyway. 

The European Union is a diabolical construct. What started as a way to improve commerce and economic relationships – a worthy aim on its own – has long become the political project of a Big Nanny superstate with the same respect for thre freedom of its citizen of a Leonid Breznev. This is not about a better economic environment anymore, or about closed ties making wars more difficult.

Your own freedom is at stake. Not in the obvious manner of, say, an Anschluss, but in the far more subtle way of having your brain moulded, since a child, according to the wishes of a small clicque of people who have nested itself in the vital centres of power (the organisations and lobbies and donors who influence the appointments to key places) and, from there, steer the immense herd of stupid cows – yes, you – into believing absurdities like “there is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.” In fact, the very fact that such proposals are aired and proposed a EU policy by certainly influential people show the fullness of the decay of the concept of freedom in Europe, and how Brussels is the perfect incubator for every threat to it. 

The EU must die.It must be killed as a political project and be scaled back to what is sensible: the easing of commerce, the opening of markets, the economic benefits deriving from the (sensible) standardisations of common goods, from screwdrivers to potatoes and from gherkins to car tires.

The best way to vote in the upcoming elections for the EU Parliament (a misleading expression anyway; in no European democracy the organs of the Executive have so much power as in Brussels) is to give contributions to the dismantling of this immense repressive apparatus.

Mundabor

Posted on March 21, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Interesting to note that most of them come from countries which were under the heel of communist dictatorships for decades. How well democracy has worked for them, allowing them to grow fat on one of the most corrupt organisations in the world whose financial auditors have for years refused to sign the books. You can take the man out of communism . . .
    And our freedom-loving governments can’t wait to adopt the EU’s lunatic edicts.

  2. Hmmm…I recall reading Popes (pre-V2) discussing the concept of freedom. If my broken brain remembers right, they were not supportive of writing whatever you want i.e. evil as freedom. They referred to it as poison…and why would you put poison on the shelves? I was taught that freedom isn’t the license to read, say and do evil…but the ability to know right from wrong and the ability to do the right thing. I think we need to get away from the “right” to say, write and do evil things…and get back to a mere toleration of only speech and private pamphlets. Use our brains to find laws that promote truth and tolerate evil only if the public good is served in a certain way. Just my thoughts::+) God bless you Mundy:+)

    • All very fine, but one thing is how we would do it in a Catholic state – I would merely tolerate a lot of things, and many I would not even tolerate – and another one is how it is reasonable to expect that a democracy works *even if it is not a Catholic State*.

      The fact that even in very Catholic Italy of the Fifties the freedom of expression was intended in an extremely wide way tells us what an important good it is. Important, by the way, even for us; then when our freedom to be Catholic is directly impinged it is no great consolation to say “well, freedom isn’t the license to say everything one wants anyway”..

      M

    • maggycast,
      Just wait until you (and Mundabor, and me) get punished by the state for “intolerance” towards “married” homosexuals or have your children taken away for stating “anti-feminist” views in public or telling them about the difference between men and women. Then we can talk about the “evil” or “poison” of freedom again. We could certainly arrange a visit in jail for that very purpose, if you like… 😉

      Today, most people do not even understand there is a difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex. How do you think you will get those “laws that promote truth and tolerate evil only if the public good is served”?
      Look, I know those wonderful pre-V2 encyclicals as well, but do you seriously think preconciliar Popes would support repression of “homophobia”, “anti-feminism” and such in the name of opposition to the poison of “freedom of expression”? Because that is what these Eurocrats are talking about. They are not talking about repression of evil – at least not what we would call evil. They are basically talking about repressing our Faith and the moral conclusions that flow from it.

      And seeing that it is utterly impossible today to get laws passed that repress only anti-Catholic expression, from a practical standpoint the best approach seems to be to argue in favor of unrestricted freedom of speech. This, at least, is a principle many people can understand, even if they disagree with our faith or morals. Laws based upon freedom of expression might actually have a chance of being passed and thereby preventing repression of good Catholic views. Is it not better to have the good along with the evil, both uncensored, than just the evil, with the good being outlawed and persecuted? Would you rather have a society in which both the Catechism and pornography was equally legal, or a society overflowing with legal pornography, but no Catechism and no Bible, because those books are “intolerant”? Given that choice, I do strongly prefer unrestricted freedom of expression, and I rather suspect, Pope St. Pius X. would not have disagreed…
      Of course, having a Catholic State would still be preferable, but while we work on that currently far off goal, should we not use the means we do currently have at our disposal to preserve our ability to defend the values of our Faith publicly without fear of persecution?

    • Very well said, Sir.

      M

  3. Mundabor,
    yes, vote UKIP by all means. And send some of that common sense over to Germany for me to vote for as well.
    Until then I will have to support AfD, even though they are almost as soft and wobbly and deceitful on the principle of EU membership as your esteemed Prime Minister… 😉

    By the way: These new smileys are so ugly I might actually stop using them…!

    • I have no idea where the smilies came from 😉 I noticed them one or two days ago, too… WordPress must have been at work again.

      UKIP are also, to put it mildly, bastards and prostitutes.

      But they are bastards and prostitutes that might help us to scale back Brussels, and a useful whip to lash the Tories…

      M

  4. Thank you catocon and Mundy for your responses. Yes, I would prefer the ability to speak both lies and truth in a godless culture vs. being imprisoned for speaking truth:+) I guess I was trying to refer to the Catholic (and thus true) definition of “freedom of expression” stated by the Popes pre-V2 which of course is based on Catholic teaching/truth. In my own little life and way, I try to re-educate as many people as I can as to the authentic definition…for that is the goal…to discover and thus live out truth. Yes, it will probably take a Catholic state in our time to show the way. I doubt it will be Protestant since they messed up the US royally. Maybe an African nation will pave the way:+) God bless you both~

%d bloggers like this: