What the pretext of democracy is worth. In Latvia and elsewhere

The not so deep ancestry of the European Union is rooted in Nazism; the EU itself is essentially continuation of the Third Reich or rather the reincarnation of the Third Reich's pan-European project albeit one achieved by so far somewhat less violent means.

But there are things in and about the EU that would even give old good Nazis a pause. One essential thing to governance, to the manner how societies  are governed and function, is the consent of the governed. In the Soviet Union, which had elections, and was more democratic than the United States has ever been (strikingly so before 1960s) but was far from the ideals of the Athenian democracy (which I don't hold for an ideal), opinion and ultimately consent of citizens was sought on even  most trivial of issues, such as trade names for new automobile models. Any monarchy operates with consent of the governed. When the consent is not there, in times of crisis, either the monarch is assassinated, dynasty replaced or some sort of revolution happens if there is no peaceful mechanism to change the state of affairs to which people do no longer give their consent.

What I find most remarkable about the European Union is the total utter contempt for the opinion of its inhabitants below the political strata. It is striking, how often politicians even in supposedly liberal minded entities like Germany or Austria, never mind pure Eastern European ethnocracies like SS-states of Estonia and Latvia, invoke the mantra of democracy and how little respect they have for the thing. Democracy seems to be a religion but an odd one. Unlike many a religion it is devoid of much meaning, can be found self-contradictory by any impartial observer, like the majority's opinion may be declared anti-democratic and vice versa, but unlike a true religion, also devoid of any promise and any hope.

The contempt for democracy or contempt for what population thinks is the feature of the European Union's life that is probably unprecedented on the wider historic scale.

The former Soviet Republic, and an now an ethno-Nazi satrapy of so-called Latvia, a tribal state did not exist less than a mere century ago and which genesis lies with the Bolsheviks, is about to join the Reichsmark zone (now it is called "adopting the euro"). Curious is the difference on how Russian Federation media and media that is either pro-Nazi or pro-American covered the news.  News outlets (I can only consult those online) in the Russian Federation reported that 67% of  Latvians oppose the euro while pro-Nazi or America media rejoiced - the support for euro rises to 33%.

The decision to abandon a pretext of monetary independence is a momentous one. It is probably as grave a decision as a territory can take on becoming independent (not that anyone earnestly asked the denizens of what is now Latvia about whether the territory should be independent or not, it is not, or not that they had any power to affect the matter). But even in the Soviet era referenda were held on the most important issues and no Soviet authority would ever attempt to change the daily lives of inhabitants in a radical fashion  while facing the opposition or lacking consent of what  in real terms approaches 70% of Latvians.

Latvia is an ethnocracy, a rare species of states and statelets that emerged after the catastrophe of the First World War on the western periphery of Russia and along the eastern periphery of the Austrian Empire  and are currently confined to the Eastern Europe which alone has the ethnostate as its dominant model (by a stretch of imagination one can call Israel an ethnostate, Israel's roots are also Central and Eastern European, not Middle Eastern,  but would be stretching it because Israel has such a strong element of theocracy to it.  One can become an Israeli without being Jewish and one can become Jewish in Israel by converting to Judaism. One can become Austrian, and his kids would be seen and treated as Austrians in Austria, merely by fulfilling a few criteria and swearing allegiance in  one form or the other - either  to the ruling dynasty in the past, to the republic currently. One can never become an Estonian or Latvian without being born to the pool of peasant tribesmen or their Soviet-urbanized offspring who were promoted to the rank of "nations" with the help of the Bolshevks. A Latvian can become a Frenchman, an Austrian or an American but has no chance of becoming an Estonian and vice versa). In today's Latvia the civil rights and the right to vote or the right to be asked about any matter is confined to "ethnic Latvians",  peasants and their descendants of three Russian governorate who speak  Baltic dialects related to or "invented from" Lithuanian. Some 40% of Latvia's inhabitants are denied the right to vote because they are deemed to be of wrong ethnicity. Those are Russians but there Russian is anyone who does not belong to the titular tribe (Jews are Russians and are discriminated against in a manner reminiscent of the Third Reich under approval and protection of the Third Reich's European heir, the European Union).

So in those terms, the 33% - 40 equation roughly would signifies that some 17% to 18% support the incorporation into the euro which in turn means that over 80% of Latvia's inhabitants, if we to recalculate the date in an honest manner, oppose Latvia's final absorption into the new Reichsmark's zone. That is the kind of treatment usually accorded to the population of an occupied territory. Though labeled a democracy by the US/EU democracy grading mechanism, the territory of Latvia is anything but. Not just there you have a widespread institutionalized ethnic and linguistic discrimination on the scale that would put both old South Africa under apartheid  and parts of Nazi Germany to shame, but the opinion of the the pseudo-Aryan and supposedly privileged tribesmen, the Latvians, is apparently of no concern to anybody.

It looks that ethnofascist juntas that usurped power in the periphery statelets annexed by the European Union  and the EU itself are determined to ignore popular opinion of its underlings at all costs when pushing forward with the Reich's centralizing agenda or imposing imperial designs on the hapeless. Even in larger subjugated nations on the continent referendums or referenda are only allowed to go forward when the results of the referendums are known in advance to be favorable to the EU's agenda. If not, then a referendum would be derailed. If somehow a referendum or public vote takes place and succeeds against all odds, and the results are not favorable to the EU, then the heir to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, headquartered in the largest city of the Austrian Netherlands, and the Third Reich rolled in one, would threaten the misbehaving state and its population with sanctions and assorted future hardships,  push for another vote, and then for another, and for another, until results favorable for or to the EU are obtained. But in case of minor, artificial statelets such as those carved in the Russian territory and then annexed as strategic Brückenköpfe, the population, even of privileged ethnic stock, is not even asked, its opinion seems to hold same non-material value to the proprietors as  the opinion of their  farm animals would be, in fact considering everything it is amazing that farm animals are even permitted to have an opinion. 

There is a good post by Leoš Tomíček on Ukraine's integration with the EU or rather lack thereof. Leoš's are so far without an exception very good: both a joy to read and a source of enlightenment with an accent on one moderately unfortunate region and its denizens.
 
I wrote a comment, am unsure it wasn't lost so I'd reproduce here because it applies as much to the relationship not just between the Ukraine and the Russian Federation, but in a sense to the skewed nature of relationship, that I'd call the disbalance of power, between the Russian Federation and the ethnostates on its periphery. It seems that Russia (the Russian Federation that is because Russia itself is larger than the Russian Federation) under current authoritarian regime and regime is the word that I'd choose despite all of its negative connotations, is reluctant to convert its vast economic strength, which does not only consist of gas and oil but foremostly of the entitlement of access to Russia's domestic market, a privilege that is now granted to anyone,  friend or foe, just by asking as if it were indeed a right,  into foreign policy influence. On the other hand, Russia's civilizational enemies,  such as the United States, have enormous foreign policy leverage despite very modest economic presence in the region.  While the EU's influence over Ukraine's economy is immaterial -there are few products  the Ukraine produces that the EU needs  or wants to buy  from it, the power the EU sways over Ukraine's politicians is astonishing as is the desire of Ukraine's Soviet elite to do any kind of imaginable harm to their own country in exchange for the promise of being on some later occasion granted  the collective honorary title of nominally white men.

So why does EU refuse to integrate the Ukraine while doing everything it its power to prevent any meaningful rapprochement of Ukraine with the Russian Federation (though read Leoš Tomíček's post first)? The second part is easy. The  EU junta is largely anti-European, pro-fascist, pro-Nazi in its spiritual and historical roots and Atlantist in its present   and it is natural for it to see Russia as its' chief enemy, hence of of course any integration of Russia with anything even toxic to EU itself is seen as a bad thing. But the answer to the first part of the question, why doesn't it take in Ukraine in the way it adopted little Baltic ethno-Nazis is somewhat trickier:

There are two issues here and here's how I see them:


- the first one is that  the EU has difficult time digesting all the noxious garbage it consumed recently, the toxic refuse it ate up from the little ethno-Nazi creeps in the Baltics to megarich Bulgaria as devoured all the  trash    sweeping it clean from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

- the second cause  is probably racism and civilizational animosity or a mixture of both substances - the folks from Russia Minor are still deemed somewhat Russian in the eyes of the Fourth Reich's unelected officialdom (I know that must be immensely troubling to the indigenous Ukronazis or their overseas relatives or, in turn, their proprietors) and by virtue or misfortune of being somewhat Russian, the entire statelet is therefore condemned to a category lower than Rumania. This forces Ukraine into the position of poor Turkey or even worse,something alike Egypt, the Fourth Reich would perhaps go for amputation of impoverished Galicia and the Carpathian region only for the sake of imperial glory but otherwise it might have learned its history lesson and merely wants to stabilize the front line at the positions of late 1941.

The destruction or dissolution of the EU, something that of course would also be a great boon to humanity in the longer term, is the only hope for the Ukraine's integration with the rest of Europe.

And yes, the hypocrisy, particularly on the part of American establishment, is astounding. They expect Russia to have no voice in internal or external affairs of the Ukraine but they want to subsidize Ukraine's very existence, something, true enough, the Russian Federation has been doing all those years, and those generous  subsidies did not just cover Ukraine because the Russian Federation has faithfully been feeding a host of adopted honorary Europeans, nourishing hostile regimes from failed states around the Black Sea to the Nazi statelets on the eastern shore of the Baltic.