Counter-Currents
The new European Union is increasingly reminiscent of the old Soviet Union. (Illustration: iStock)
924 words
Poland joined the European Union 20 years ago. For many, it was the only right and natural choice. The EU was supposed to give us all that we had been denied by the Communist system. EU membership was to guarantee freedom of speech and opinion as well as freedom to conduct business, while ensuring the protection of private property. At the same time, the balance of power between the larger and smaller EU member states made us believe we would preserve our national sovereignty. One could then think that the European Union was the opposite of the Soviet Union, and that membership would give Poland and Poles the benefits they never could have hoped for in the Moscow-controlled Comecon.
Before the accession referendum took place, the Polish Sejm, then controlled by the post-Communist Left, passed a special resolution in 2003 to dispel any possible doubts, declaring that: “The Sejm of the Republic of Poland states that Polish legislation on the moral order of social life; the dignity of the family, marriage and upbringing; and the protection of life shall not be subject to any restrictions by way of international regulations.”
The new European Union
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Against Imperialism here.
It is easy to see that after 20 years the situation has changed dramatically. First, the position of nation-states in the EU has significantly deteriorated. After the reforms brought to the European treaties by the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, and following the recent changes in 2020 that introduced the “rule-of-law” conditionality regulation [regarding the member states’ access to EU funds], the right of single states to oppose the will of the big EU members has become something of an illusion. Changes in legislation have been accompanied by arbitrary expansion of the powers in the hands of EU institutions through judicial decisions. Brussels’ goal has become the construction of a unified, centralized European state, and its ideals are best expressed in the so-called Ventotene Manifesto, whose author was the Italian Communist Altiero Spinelli. It is to him that modern liberals, Leftists, and even many representatives of the so-called “right” refer as they prepare proposals for reforming the EU.
To bring about a centralized European state, the remnants of the nation-states must be destroyed. Legal and political decisions alone are not enough. What is needed is what the Communists called the superstructure, which is a common ideology. Its goal is on one hand to shatter identities and deconstruct the memory of individual nations, i.e. old customs, laws, and above all religion, and on the other to create a new vision for the future and build a new European nation. In the case of the EU, this superstructure has several major ideological components.
Genderism
The first is genderism, i.e. the view that there are no objectively-given two genders, and that the division between men and women and between male and female roles is merely a social and cultural construct. Adopting this principle must lead to a change in the educational system and a break with past generations. What was sacred and great for them is to become something indifferent, or perhaps even shameful, for people today. The past is a history of repression and patriarchal oppression, and a history of persecution through the norms in force of all that is fluid and indeterminate.
Climatism
Second, climatism and the so-called “green revolution” are designed to destroy the middle class and corral all potentially independent social groups into the state system. A good example of this is the “Fit for 55” plan implemented by the EU with almost maniacal zeal. It leads to the accumulation of economic power in the hands of the state. Economic freedom virtually ceases to exist, as a centralized system of control, surveillance, and observation is to watch over everything. Taxes cease to be imposed for the public interest, and instead become a tool of social engineering, serving to weaken those groups, such as farmers, for whom there is no place in the future.
The utopia of a “zero-carbon” Europe is ultimately destined to lead to widespread impoverishment for almost everyone except, of course, for a narrow group of Eurocrats and the corporations behind them. The whole climate ideology is very much reminiscent of a religious sect where the basic assumption that we are dealing with anthropocentric-induced climate change which is leading to a historical catastrophe is not discussed but merely accepted as dogma, to be taken on faith.
Immigrationism
Finally, the third face of EU ideology is immigrationism – that is, the drive to open national borders and mix all the races, cultures, and nations in Europe. From this point of view, Muslim newcomers from the Middle East and Africa are particularly welcome because they carry the greatest potential for rebellion against the established social and national structures. Thus, the last vestiges of Christianity are disappearing, and the massive influx of immigrants is shattering local and regional identities. Once a certain number of immigrants has been reached, a country also loses the ability to maintain its own cultural memory. One reason for this is that it must constantly take into account the sensitivities and feelings of visitors from other civilizations and adapt to them.
A new European Union is being born before our eyes which has nothing in common with the organization Poland joined 20 years ago, and is reminiscent of the Soviet Union from which we fled.
The above was originally published in Polish in the Do Rzeczy weekly magazine. This translation was published at the English-language Polish conservative site Sovereignty.pl.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
11 comments
Nobiscum Deus
“A good example of this is the “Fit for 55” plan implemented by the EU with almost maniacal zeal. It leads to the accumulation of economic power in the hands of the state”
You can build the most advanced submarine, but if the top hatch is engineered with a screen door, it is headed toward a catastrophic failure on its first dive. The problem is, only the mariners onboard actually pay the price for this, while the contractor and appropriators will likely actually profit while authorizing FRN for construction of version 2.0.
While I understand the Polish, Russian or Czech concerns as pertains to ‘Communism’ – as this author alludes to – this concept did not yet exist in contemporary vernacular at the outset of US central governance. The conflict was something much more basic and intrinsic, which pitted a very familiar, organized elite class against the perceived (and probably also accurate) threat of the disorganized mob, suspected of seeking to pilfer their betters.
The House of Commons and House of Lords was the precursor attempt to navigate this same dilemma. The US implementation is actually far less adequate if only because no one is actually titled nobility, but would often like to be so. This concept of balancing the purely Democratic ‘mob’ will versus the supposedly tempered representative Republic forms, invariably staffed by cooperating economic interests, goes back to the very earliest Greek treatises.
This supersedes any sort of right/left constructs, and attempts to focus against the threat of a ragged communist mob ignore that the way that these systems have actually gained purchase over societies in real world outcomes is through the construction of Perma-Representatives. How is a system in the hands of EPP elites who have almost complete autonomy from the average citizen going to do anything but re-transform itself back into a Feudal elite?
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/03/07/europes-centre-right-party-clears-path-for-von-der-leyens-re-election-despite-some-objecti
Everyone is motivated by fear of the perceived opposing interests (masses vs. elites) gaining permanent control. The one sure thing is that parties and their apparatchiks who are transnational (Von Der Leyen, Tusk, Varadkar, to name only a notorious few), or subject to transnational interests, cannot represent anyone because they are no longer actually accountable to any national population and are openly flaunting this through the mechanism of the EPP, for instance.
The fatal flaw in the US system that opened the door in our case for uncontrolled fiat banking, inflation cycles, ‘implied’ powers, and cronyism, was a lack of pre-determined limits on terms of office, as well as salary and outside compensation restrictions permanently imposed on the ‘representatives’ in advance. If you know that 4 years from now you will be back in your district with no legal means to personally profit from your term, you have a strong incentive to do the right thing.
People who vote themselves a lifetime govt pension after 2 terms of office while proffering 401k contributions for everyone else, or mandate Obamacare penalties for the commoners while lavishing full-ride health insurance policies at taxpayer expense for their own family will always do this, as long as they can get away with it.
These factions will also require a permanent voter support bloc and they will lavish benefits on these chosen faction(s) (until it collapses the currency) to maintain their power as long as possible. This voter support bloc is totally detached from the real economy or societal condition by nature of their beneficiary status. They are, in a very Mendelian sense, naturally selected for being open to any sort of propaganda or programming. Thus ‘who needs these farmers’ is not illogical to someone who has never known want or need that their local council has not been detailed to resolve for them.
The pivotal failure of the US system was the delusional (actually deceptive) proposition that power seeking individuals would voluntarily police themselves and adhere to the George Washington example of abdicating from power or limit their own control over others. Unless you want to exhume a Marcus Aurelius, this was clearly the exception, not the rule, and this same rule follows in the wake of our cousins’ EU dalliance.
The ‘fit for 55’ cabal are literal re-pop Lysenkno-ists, however this does not change the fact that for Soviet Communism to take root in the first place, you needed a population that was already in servitude from the top down, being fed into a disastrous meat grinder war along with much of the rest of Europe, at this time. The band is back together, today scheming to send in the Taurus, Storm Shadows and SCALP’s, yet again, while they commune in the comfort of Brussels.
As someone who is adamantly anti-EU, my criticism comes from a warm place.
There are several fallacies when you try, and fail, to equate the free-market, Judio EU with the old USSR and COMECON (you even misspelled it).
The Marxist term superstructure has nothing to do with ideology. It was an economic-social term that postulated that the sociology of a society is a function of its economic relations, e.g., the thoting and anti-Christianity in Poland is a function of a society that stresses the material, the superficial and would allow an abomination, such as Instagram and Netflix, to ravage the land.
COMECON was much less overbearing than the EU. If anything COMECON was politically weak, to weak to forge proper trade and economic integration. Any plan could be vetoed by only one member, e.g., Romania demanding more industrial aid and plans as opposed to taking its natural role as an agrarian country. COMECON gave generous cheap fuel and resources to Poland in exchange for dubious quality manufactured goods, a kind of subsidy.
Nothing in communist Poland was anti-male, anti-White, pro-immigration, pro-whore. Jewish Hollywood was banned.
The next point, the EU was always a neoliberal, Reagan/Thatcher death cult. If Poland, after destroying its domestic economy in the 1990s, needed to siphon the wealth of a then prosperous Western Europe, it doesn’t change this character. It’s obvious that the EU was always going to erase the great nations of Europe and tank industrial economies in the service of a financial, debt accumulation model.
I have Italian citizenship and that once economically mighty country hasn’t grown more than 2 percent since adopting the Euro in 1999. It’s vaunted industries and social democratic conduct is in tatters. It’s women barren thots, with the only youth the worst of the third world. That Poland or the Baltics could ever escape this fate was delusional, as delusional as the Russophobia.
No white person would ever praise communism or whine about russophobia, vladimir.
The CIA funded the EU and the migration policies are based on the american model of the United States of Europe and the Berlin Wall would be the most concrete example of why the neoliberal dictatorship is not like the USSR.
Biden’s ambassador to Budapest has a more generous moderation policy than this website. You are an old man now, Greg.
Do you ever turn off your bitch switch?
I didn’t save the comment. Which part was bitchy? It was about the EU from the point of view of a Hungarian.
Then what are you complaining about?
I commented on this article about 2 weeks ago. Apparently it hasn’t been published. I didn’t save a copy for myself, so I can’t check if it was really objectionable by reasonable standards. As far as I remember, I supported the author on some points, but disagreed about what the main problems are. There was nothing personal in it.
I didn’t see it. Maybe it got sucked down the the Spam filter.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment