The New Czars of Europe

Paul Belien has published an essay today in The Telegraph about Charles Michel (the new President of the European Council) and Ursula von der Leyen (the new President of the European Commission). Below are some excerpts:

Meet Charles Michel, Belgium’s political scion hellbent on building an EU empire

by Paul Belien

The appointment of Ursula von der Leyen, the German Defence Minister, and Charles Michel, the Prime Minister of Belgium, at the helm in Brussels is good news for Brexiteers. Von der Leyen and Michel hate and despise Britain, with the same vigour as Ann Widdecombe and Nigel Farage fight the EU, and they have already indicated that they are eager to see the back of the UK as soon as possible.

Following the Brexit referendum, von der Leyen lambasted the Brits for having “paralysed” and “consistently blocked” the Eurocrats’ ambition to construct a “United States of Europe,” while Michel added that Brexit creates the opportunity for expanding the powers of the EU, “the most beautiful dream of the twenty-first century.”

Both Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel grew up in families of Eurocrats eager to create a European super-state. Both were born and raised in Belgium. 60-year old Ursula von der Leyen nee Albrecht is the daughter of Ernst Albrecht, a former Director-General of the European Commission in the 1950s and 60s and afterwards Prime Minister of the German state of Lower Saxony.

As Defence Minister, von der Leyen turned the Bundeswehr into a laughing stock. She had the German army squander money on several useless projects, including purchasing new assault rifles that cannot shoot straight in warm weather. The anecdote about the German soldier who, for lack of weapons during a NATO exercise, took a broomstick and painted it black is not a joke, but sad reality. She is also known for a Ph.D. thesis that contained several plagiarised paragraphs and for going against her own Christian Democratic Party by supporting adoption rights for same-sex couples.

Paradoxically, the appointment of LGBTQ+ activist von der Leyen was supported by conservative governments in Eastern Europe, such as Poland’s. This prompted German journalist Peter Grimm to suggest that “by rendering the German army largely incapable of fighting, she has somehow reassured countries that were once invaded by the Wehrmacht.”

Charles Michel is a product of blatant nepotism. He is the son of Louis Michel, who as former Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and former European Commissioner was an outspoken advocate of annexing the entire Mediterranean basin, including North Africa and the Middle East, to the EU.


But here is the good news for the Brexiteers: Since Van Rompuy explicitly admits that an EU army is impossible as long as “the British brake” on a common European defence structure is not removed, turning the EU into a “world power” will not be possible without Brexit. Herman Van Rompuy, Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel, Emmanuel Macron, all realize this.

So, throw a well-deserved party to celebrate Brexit when it occurs, but do not forget to watch your back. Because history shows that every continental empire across the English Channel has been an enemy of Britain, democracy and freedom. The EU empire in the making will be no different.

Read the rest at The Telegraph.

5 thoughts on “The New Czars of Europe

  1. Final paragraph is so true. The USA, UK and Russia might need to form an alliance. Will the EU and China then find “common ideals”? Well, they are both communist with untouchable ruling elites dictating to the peasants, restricting freedom. At least China deals to Islam so without civil war and re-emergence of the European people’s the alliance will crumble, leaving the EU as a giant Islamic superstate.

    • One of the few positives to be said about China’s policies is they recognize the muslim threat.

      As to any danger the euroweenies could raise an army, please don’t make me laugh. Ursula von der leyen is proof positive of the feminine avoidance reflex of Euro obsequiousness. Where are their men, hiding until the swimming pools let in only neutered eunuchs?

  2. Lately, due to recordings and articles by the Abbeville Institute, such as , I have been gaining a far deeper perspective in US and European history.

    In Europe, except for Switzerland, the trend has been for the creation of totalitarian, centrally-controlled superstates. The only foci of power is the massive superstate, which has no limits to its growth since its only criterion for existing is the expansion of power and territory.

    The superstate model was explicitly rejected by the Jeffersonians. Jefferson envisioned small governments and territories designed to maximize the representation of the citizen. One of the consequences of this view of government is that a nation must not grow so large that the legislators cannot adequately represent their constituents. The figure given was one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants, up to maybe 100,000 in a pinch.

    Alexander was the opposition to Jefferson. Hamilton wanted a superstate nation in the US, and thought the Constitution didn’t give the central government enough power over the states.

    The EU is very much in the European superstate tradition. Britain, of course, unless it has the fortune to break up into Scotland, Wales, England and perhaps a few others, is itself a superstate, but its virtue is that it serves as a counter to the EU. The situation is somewhat reminiscent of the 3 superstates in Orwell’s 1984, where the only remote hope for individual liberty is for one massive superstate to improbably demolish one of the other superstates.

    I actually consider the ideas being presented at the Abbeville Institute to be more subversive to communism and the totalitarian government juggernaut than many of the banned sites. Perhaps the Abbeville Institute is simply too small to be noticed…yet. Certainly too small for them to acknowledge my contribution, but hey…that’s life.

  3. The idea that the EU would somehow offer a “better deal” than was presented to Theresa May now seems unlikely, if, in fact, they want Britain gone.

    The problem for the EU, in the long run, is that Britain will eventually be the most populous country in Europe (excepting Russia, of course). So, there will be the EU, with powerful Britain (allied with the US) on one side and mighty Russia on the other.

    If the US finally stops it’s pointless and costly effort to defend Europe, the EU will be in deep do-do.

  4. The problem for the EU is that its leaders have no real support. As Europe shifts to the right, the EU leadership shifts to the left. How many will answer the EU’s call for people to lay down their lives in its cause? Not many I tend to think. The first real crisis will see the Eu fall apart.

Comments are closed.