It is impossible to exaggerate the complacency and irresponsibility of the ruling class in Europe today.
European leaders are not stupid, nor are they unaware. Consider the following speech from October of last year by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker:
I do not often cry, but when I look evening after evening at this long procession of refugees which remind me of those black-and-white images at the end of the Second World War which I saw when I was young, I sometimes almost cry. I do not like this Europe — this navel-gazing Europe, this Europe which is closing itself to the hopes and expectations of others. I love the Europe where hundreds of thousands of volunteers come to help, to support the refugees. Me, I know full well that we cannot welcome on our territories all the misery of the world, but we need to at least look at the misery of the world before acting.
We were able to end the Cold War. We were, and I am proud of it, able to fuse nineteen national currencies into a single currency. In fact, I am the only politician in Europe left who is among the signatories of the Maastricht Treaty which created the European Union and the euro. . . . We must relearn how to be proud of Europe. We were able to end this tragedy where Europe was a continent of wars. We have peace. The entire planet admires us for this. Except sometimes, and more and more often, the Europeans.
We very often forget, my dear friends, that Europe is the smallest continent. The European Union is a territory of 5.5 million square kilometers. Russia, a European country, represents 17.5 million square kilometers. Our relative share of global gross domestic product is shrinking. Within a few years Europe will represent 15 percent of global gross domestic product. Already 80 percent of growth is taking place in countries outside the European Union. And we are already demographically very weak. We were at the beginning of the twentieth century, us Europeans, we represented 20 percent of the world population. Today, 7 percent and at the end of century among 10 billion men, women, and children, Europe will represent 4 percent. Therefore we are the smallest continent. We are demographically weakened and will remain so. . . . Therefore, the moment has not come for us to divide ourselves into leagues and national categories, the moment has to come to ensure that the European Union remains together, that it emerges strengthened from events and from crisis events. . . . And therefore, we must be careful to respect the nations. The nations who incidentally must remain internally united. There are too many divisions in Europe. No more must be added. Therefore, I would like that the whole of Europe remain coherent and remain consequential in its actions and not merely in its ambitions. [My emphasis.]
Juncker is therefore completely aware of the shocking decline in European power, and yet, as a politician, is doing nothing consequential to address it whatsoever. He registers European demographic decline merely as a fact, a kind of force of nature we should not even try to address (contrast this with the endless moralizing exhortation concerning “growth,” free trade, “more Europe,” climate change, etc.).
In the same breath, Juncker suggests, as the supreme moral good, that we shed tears over migrants and accelerate the process which will make indigenous Europeans not only a tiny global minority of less than 4 percent of the world population, but vulnerable minorities in their own historic homelands, in the face of the new, largely Afro-Islamic majorities. This is not a comforting thought when one considers the treatment of minorities across the Afro-Islamic world, including Kosovo and Syria, which are not very far away.
The only “solution” Juncker proposes is merely to cling ever more tightly to the European Union and its common currency, like a child grasping at his blanket. But the EU is not power, but a fractious coalition of little democratic states, which is held in relative contempt throughout the world. Nowhere is this contempt more evident than in British Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum on his country’s membership: Evidently, the British ruling class simply does not think this is an important issue, and hence, is willing to thoughtlessly gamble upon it for electoral reasons. (According to polls, the British are split down the middle on EU membership and there is a real chance they will vote to leave. However, whatever the EU’s faults, leaving would not fundamentally change indigenous Britons’ path to becoming a minority in their own country. All this is largely a distraction.)
‘Europe’ is a word that the European ruling class have cheapened and abused. For them, ‘Europe’ does not mean actual flesh-and-blood Europeans, nor does it mean our unparalleled Western civilization. Rather, to them, ‘Europe’ means only adherence to certain recently-invented “values,” it means a geographical location, it means a mere administrative entity, the EU. For them, Muslim and Asiatic Turkey is “European,” a legitimate candidate for EU membership, whereas “undemocratic” Russia is not. For them, Europe does not mean our people or its precious biocultural heritage, forged through tens of thousands of years of genetic and cultural evolution. They wax lyrical about the need for the EU to maintain peace among the nations of ‘Europe,’ but are happy to see these nations demographically decline and ultimately destroyed.
No, ‘Europe’ to them means only one thing: Adherence to liberal orthodoxy and to their selective enforcement of that orthodoxy, in line with the real powers they answer to (above all the American Empire and global plutocracy).
EU officials are often guilty of a kind of economistic autism concerning immigration: That all human beings (featherless bipeds, so to speak) on this planet are basically interchangeable, and therefore if native Europeans have insufficient children to maintain the population, well the 30-odd percent gap can be made up importing unlimited Africans and Muslims (regardless of their level of education, their actual track record of performance, or indeed of the desirability of the ethnic cohesion of European nations).
Besides Juncker, there is his colleague Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s vice president. He made a surreal speech (which has to be read to be believed) at the “first annual colloquium on fundamental rights” last year. The speech was noteworthy for several elements: A moralistic plea to increase the Muslim presence in Europe by importing migrants, extreme concern and attention for Europe’s tiny Jewish minority and “the rise of anti-Semitism” (and apparently blind to the fact that the importation of Muslims was largely responsible for this rise), and a truly bizarre demand that “there is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future.” A few extracts:
I think it is hugely symbolic that we have decided to devote this first colloquium to anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hated. I feel very strongly about both issues. . . .
About a year ago I started losing sleep [sic]! over the headlines about Aliya: Europeans leaving Europe, today’s Europe, because they no longer see, as Jews, a future for themselves here. Without our Jewish community, Europe would cease to exist. Europe would simply cease to exist. . . .
And when you know anything about European history, you know that antisemitism is a triple red line, never, ever to be crossed, for our collective sanity.
Antisemitism is not just terrible for the Jewish community, it is like a fever in an infected body; it points at a much wider problem. . . .
The fact that today, in Europe, anti-Semitism is still a reality, and that it is in fact on the rise — old antisemitism that we have known for centuries, and new antisemitism, that sometimes tries to hide itself behind anti-Zionism — is something we need to confront. I don’t want European children [sic] to grow up with police at their school gates; it is a dark, dark stain on our collective conscience. …
Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat. Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity’s destiny. There is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future. That’s where humanity is heading. And those politicians trying to sell to their electorates a society that is exclusively composed of people from one culture, are trying to portray a future based on a past that never existed, therefore that future will never be.
Europe will be diverse, like all other parts of the world will be diverse. The only question is, how do we deal with that diversity? And my answer to that is, by ensuring that our values determine how we deal with diversity and not giving up our values to refuse diversity. That will bring us down as a society.
If we don’t get this right, I truly believe Europe will not remain the Europe we built. Europe will not remain a place of peace and freedom, for very long.
Timmermans seems to be saying: ethnic diversity is a necessary precondition for horrible inter-ethnic conflict (to be addressed through massive ideological indoctrination and enforcement to impose “our values”) with the risk that it could “bring us down as a society” and end “peace and freedom” in Europe. Well then, why not pursue the simplest solution: why not prevent all these problems of ethnic conflict by maintaining our homogeneity through a sound immigration policy?
Why not apply the EU precautionary principle to immigration policy rather than risk doing difficult-to-reverse harm to our countries if the diversity-mongers’ optimism turns out to be unfounded?
That is exactly what the nations of Central Europe, Japan, the Gulf Arabs, Israel, and many other countries are doing. In Central Europe, there is no Islamic terrorism killing hundreds of people, as in Paris and Brussels. In Western Europe, over half of prison inmates are typically of African or Islamic origin, while in Japan there is a glut of lawyers because of the absence of crime (a nice problem to have!).
The European policymakers who have managed the Eurozone’s economic crisis have long been cognizant of the fact the diversity between the currency bloc’s nations has been a fundamental source of problems, as this implies relative lack of solidarity, dialogue, and common socio-economic assumptions. Yet, they are happy to increase diversity within these nations, despite the fact that no European country has managed to happily integrate, let alone assimilate non-European migrants and their descendants.
Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, and Angela Merkel have all called multiculturalism a “failure,” yet all continue(d) to bring in more non-European immigrants, whose descendants make up a very large and rapidly-expanding portion of births (probably around a third in both Britain and France).
Is it not obvious that immigration of low-IQ and uneducated non-Europeans will lead to permanent damage to our nations’ human capital and ethno-cultural (and therefore social) cohesion? Indeed, even official German, French, and British statistics recognize this in the low average education and economic achievement, and disproportionate criminality and welfare use of non-European migrants and their descendants.
But no, according to Timmermans “diversity is humanity’s destiny. There is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future.” Apparently the last Yanomamo tribe in the deepest Brazilian rainforest will also need to have its shameful homogeneity broken through the “enrichment” of African and Muslim settlers. Who does Timmermans think will force “diversity” on Central Europe and Japan? Personally, being already very “enriched” by the Muslim presence in Paris and Marseille, I don’t see why I would want to go all the way to Kyoto or Saint Petersburg just to be greeted with Moroccans and Somalis (who will have maintained their wonderful culture of course, thus sparing me a Japanese or Russian experience).
We can also note the jabbering incoherence of one of Timmermans’ main points: Whereas the future will be inevitably diverse, any attempt to prevent this anyway is futile because the idea of ethnically homogeneous societies is “based on a past that never existed, therefore that future will never be.” But surely if the future will be more diverse than the present, than the past can be more homogeneous in comparison. Timmermans’ speech reads like half-digested nonsense acquired in a politicized multiculturalism class.
One thing is certain: Timmermans has no intention of imposing “diversity” on Israel. As the Jewish Telegraph Agency reports, Timmermans has dedicated an incredible amount of attention and political capital to promoting Israel and the holocaust narrative. As Dutch foreign minister, Timmermans was repeatedly pressured to protect Israel from mild economic sanctions seeking to address the rights of the Palestinians, let alone end Israel’s status as a Jewish ethno-state with a racially discriminatory Jews-only immigration policy. Why shouldn’t Europeans — who have suffered as much as any people throughout history — have their own ethno-state to ensure their own security and survival?
Timmermans’ disproportionate concern for Jewish issues is astonishing. I do not know if there is any personal connection. But what this makes clear is that, like all leading “democratic politicians” in the West today (e.g., the pseudo-egalitarian baby-faced Justin Trudeau), Timmermans knows which way his bread is buttered: He will adhere to egalitarian and anti-nationalist orthodoxy, but these will not be applied to Jews, whether in Israel or (more importantly) in Hollywood, in the Ivy Leagues, in the media-political class, or among the “one percent” of oligarchs who dominate the West today.
Another example is the German Social Democrat and President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz. He made this astonishing statement: “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” Schulz then professes that German politicians do not exist to serve the German people, but to serve a small minority and a foreign nation. And while he claims to be “trying my best to advance democracy at EU level” as EU Parliament president, he has always attacked those politicians like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán who have opposed immigration. That is despite the fact that Europeans, in various opinion polls, consistently consider immigration to a top issue and, generally, wish there were less of it.
The inconsistency should not surprise us. Our “democratic politicians” claim to defend “free speech,” “human rights,” “democracy,” and “international law. In fact, they always violate these principles whenever it is necessary to maintain the imperatives of immigration and diversity in the West, and of a Jewish ethno-state in Israel. Thus a democratic majority against immigration is “undemocratic.” A popular politician — a Le Pen, Putin, Orbán, or Trump — is inherently “undemocratic” if he or she opposes the immigration-diversity regime. Human rights and free speech are sacred — indeed they are grounds for defining the “undemocratic” people to be ostracized, but they do not protect nationalists speaking out to defend their people. Indeed, international law can be ignored in order to attack and destroy nations such as Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, because they were too nationalistic or because they were enemies of Israel.
These double standards exist because our “democratic politicians” make their living by pandering to the oligarchs who rule the West today, those who have both money and media power. Look to who attends the World Economic Forum at Davos, to who runs the most prestigious Anglo-American media, to who owns the American political class through campaign contributions. Those are the people Europe’s “democratic politicians” serve, and certainly not the European peoples.
That is how these little politicians, who have no autonomy otherwise, gain power beyond their little nation, to enjoy a global audience, to network with the rich and powerful of this world, to receive generous speaking and lobbying fees on behalf of multinational corporations, to get some NATO or EU job, and to participate, however vicariously, in the awesome power and brutal violence of the American Empire.
All that comes at a price. The insecure little politicians echo and magnify the official ideology — often to a comical extent — apparently in an effort to be noticed and seduce patrons. They would do anything to make global oligarchs and media bosses happy: Ethnically-conscious Jews like George Soros and Sheldon Adelson, self-consciously race-blind Whites like Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch, and various Third World bigwigs like Carlos Slim. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of “collaborators.”
No surprise then that the former Belgian prime minister and so-called “European federalist” Guy Verhofstadt — who rejects any ethnic identity for Europeans — has endorsed Soros’ bizarre conspiracy theory that Russian President Vladimir Putin caused the migrant crisis to destroy Europe (what does this conspiracy theory say about German Chancellor Angela Merkel patriotism?). Similarly, the former Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt equates the “open society” with open borders. Meanwhile the former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer — a child of ‘68 who collaborated in NATO’s illegal aggression against Serbia in the 1990s — deems any European nationalism to be a “fascism of the affluent” caused by “the instinctive realization that the ‘White Man’s World’— a lived reality assumed by its beneficiaries as a matter of course — is in terminal decline, both globally and in the societies of the West.” Fischer’s implication is that is that ethnic Europeans even having countries of their own is a kind of unearned racist privilege and that it is only right they be reduced to minorities everywhere. Terminal decline is supremely righteous!
This generation of European leaders was raised on the poisonous and false values of the 1960s cultural revolution. Bill Clinton — who prophesied and glorified a post-European America — is their prototype and model. They swim in the artificial world of these values and of the media-oligarchic networks they hobnob with. In that world, perversion seems as natural to them as water to a fish. They have completely imbibed false ideas: That race does not exist, that the Shoah is the sole and supreme moral reference point in all of human history, and that any ethnic European identity or self-assertion is supremely evil as such. This is the generation that, apparently, really believes we are on the road to Star Trek, a kind of communistic universal affluence and world government where ethnicity plays no role whatsoever and all are perfectly equal.
But, like Paul Krugman, these politicians are far too intelligent and well-informed to believe all this. They know the egalitarian pretense of Star Trek is a lie. They see this when they tour every single one of their frequently-visited “global cities” — whether New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Brussels . . . — and find that in each one there is always massive ethnic inequality and residential segregation. They know that there is no harmonious and egalitarian multiethnic society anywhere on any continent on this Earth, but at best only societies that plod along despite their diversity. They can see that virtually every society where different ethnic groups are present has a similar ethnic stratification in wealth and power, from top to bottom: Jews, East Asians, Whites, Browns, and Blacks.
And above all they know — very, very intimately from their career of pandering to oligarchic media and big money that they have made their life-long profession — that the profound inequalities in ethnic power in society’s elite circles. Hillary Clinton knows where she gets her money from and she knows who owns and runs the media. She knows that the ethnic distribution of money and media power is not equal but that in America in particular a tiny minority of just 2% of the population holds a staggering proportion. And, while she professes adherence to the civil religion of universal “equality,” she has no intention of applying this equality to the world’s wealthiest and disproportionately influential ethnic group.
I feel confident in predicting this: The current generation of European leaders will not be fondly remembered. Future generations will curse them as those who, because of lack of principle and pandering to the powerful, did nothing to halt European decline or the wrecking of our nations, reducing our peoples to vulnerable minorities in their own countries, in a dangerous world, an increasingly African and Asian world.
That is, unless a European Revolution should sweep them away first . . .