← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster

Thread 3861

Thread ID: 3861 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2002-12-05

Wayback Archive

Zoroaster [OP]

2002-12-05 11:40 | User Profile

[url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/[/url]

Paul Craig Roberts (archive) (printer-friendly version)

December 4, 2002

Europe R.I.P.

Europe as we have known it is disappearing. Soon there will be no France, no Germany, no Italy, no Austria, no Spain, no Denmark, no Belgium, no Holland, no Greece, no Ireland, no Great Britain. Every country will be gone. In their place will be the European Union.

The sovereign countries of continental Europe and Great Britain are products of unique histories and rich cultural distinctiveness. Each country's language, art, literature, philosophy, music, architecture, cuisine and mores reflects the uniqueness of each country's history.

This amazing diversity is to be replaced with an artificial creation that has no history and no language. What is the European Union but a centralized bureaucracy with a monetary unit?

What explains this amazing demise of countries, which, hitherto, were staunch guardians of their national identities?

The initial impetus came from the free trade belief that dismantling tariff boundaries would prevent wars by creating economic interdependence through the European Common Market. From this common market would come more wealth and prosperity to aid the postwar reconstruction of Europe and to thwart communist expansion. Once the Common Market was underway, other arguments and developments turned a plan for economic integration into political union.

Arguments were made that free trade would have differential effects and be unfair unless countries had comparable tax, monetary and budgetary policies. The implication was extra-national law and a common currency.

French fear of Germany fueled determination to bind the countries in political union.

Intellectual and propagandistic assaults on "chauvinistic" national identities eroded country loyalties, while rising anti-Americanism produced a desire for a European superstate capable of resisting U.S. pressures.

Britain's uncertainty of its place in the world, together with the Labour Party's program of dismantling traditional England, placed the United Kingdom in European hands.

The finishing touch to the demise of the sovereignty of European countries is being supplied by a centralized European bureaucracy. Technically, the European Union is a treaty arrangement entered into by sovereign states. But in fact, the European Commission and a European "court" created to arbitrate disputes are creating European law and ruling by edicts. Witness the extraordinary fact that European Union law exists prior to the existence of the European Union state.

The European Union is creating itself by successfully exercising power. Various member countries complain and kick up a fuss, but EU edicts are regularly followed.

For example, since the dawn of aviation, sovereignty has meant the right of a country to control its own air space and the landing rights of foreign airlines. Recently, the "European Court" ruled that member countries had, unbeknownst to themselves, given up the right to enter into treaties relating to air service and declared all existing agreements null and void. The "court" asserted that sovereignty over airspace resided in the European Commission.

British opponents to European Union argue that constitutionally a British government cannot surrender Britain's sovereignty to the European Union and that any such transfer is an act of treason.

These opponents, many of them legally learned, might well be correct. However, the test of sovereignty under international law is given by the answer to the question: "Are the edicts of the European Union regularly followed in the territories over which the EU claims governance?" If the answer to this factual question is "yes," then the European Union is the sovereign.

Many wonder what public choice model or theory of government behavior explains the willingness of national politicians to give up power by ceding sovereignty to the European Union. The surrender of sovereignty has dire implications for the British, because it means the end of the due process, habeas corpus and trial by jury protections to which they are accustomed.

For the United States, it means the loss of our most important ally and the rise of a competitive state and reserve currency. Blind to the challenges that Europe will soon be hurling, the United States is preoccupied with Iraq, an insignificant state that can project neither military nor economic power.

No politician comprehends the implications of the demise of European sovereignties. Gabriel Kolko in his latest book, "Another Century of War," puts his finger on the problem:

"Those who become the leaders of states are ultimately conformists on most crucial issues, and individuals who evaluate information in a rational manner -- and therefore frequently criticize traditional premises -- are weeded out early in their careers."

Thus does the United States initiate war in the Middle East while ignoring the rise of major rivals, China and the European Union, capable of terminating U.S. hegemony in the Pacific and the Atlantic.

jay

2002-12-05 15:15 | User Profile

This may be a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway. Wasn't the big crux of Hitler's campaign to unite the European peoples under a common tent? That he said numerous times Euro-folk reallly do belong to the same genetic family anyway? Didn't he go into Russia to crush the Marxists and put Russians under this same tent?

Now, the EU unites all nations under a central authority and the leftists love it. Am I missing something?

Fliegende Hollander

2002-12-06 00:06 | User Profile

The "good European" that Nietszche envisioned has nothing to do with the "good European" the NWO wishes to create. Central to the strategy of the NWO is to render meaningless the identities of the various European peoples. That's why they are attempting to turn Turks into Germans, North African "beures" into French and Pakis and West Indians into English.

Okiereddust

2002-12-06 04:55 | User Profile

Originally posted by jay@Dec 5 2002, 15:15 **This may be a dumb question, but I'll ask it anyway. Wasn't the big crux of Hitler's campaign to unite the European peoples under a common tent? That he said numerous times Euro-folk reallly do belong to the same genetic family anyway? Didn't he go into Russia to crush the Marxists and put Russians under this same tent?

Now, the EU unites all nations under a central authority and the leftists love it. Am I missing something?

=J**

Regarding Hitler, first Hitler did not give all Euro-folk the same treatment, although he wasn't entirely consistent on this point. But overall his vision of a "united" europe was more limited - it was one primarly dominated by the peoples of the north and west. Second, Hitler was primarily motivated by ambition, not ideology, and what ideology he had was not demonstrably conservative.

Regarding united Europe, the concept of a united Europe is ideologically neutral. Would be conquerors from time immemorial have sought to unite Europe. Starting with the Romans, then the Huns, then a few post emperors, then Charlamagne, Moors, Tartars, Turks, and finally Napolean, Hitler, and Stalin in the modern age have all sought, unsuccessfully, to conquer Europe for their respective ideologies. All have failed, because their ideologies in one way or another were foreign to that of a successful and prosperous (in the physical and spiritual sense) Europe. The EEU's ideology is equally hostile, and in the long run it too shall pass. The question is, and problem for the Europe of the future (as with the pevious prospective conquerors) is what kind of ruins will be left behind, and how long will it take for the remnant to clean up afterwards?

Walter Yannis

2002-12-06 11:30 | User Profile

I'm waiting for a cab so I'll throw my two cents into this one.

I think that the movement toward a pan-white consciousness has been going on for a very long time. We see it in the amalgamation of myriad European peoples. The racial motivations are semi-conscious, but race is the movement's engine. At times the true Darwinian motives of the movement become conscious, such as the Nazi movement, but it seems that white people are genetically pre-disposed to finding a healthy self interest distasteful and so usually the racial motivations are swept under the rug.

For me, the most important point Sir Arthur Kieth made in his "Evolution and Ethics" is that human beings naturally define themselves in an us-versus-them format. Both as individuals and as groups, we're genetically predestined to divide the world into internal friends and external enemies and, since Reason is the handmaiden of the emotions, any talk of "rising above it" and appeals to universalist slogans such as "the oneness of man" invariably comouflage the virulently tribalist motivations of their proponents. In short, we humans need our enemies as much as we need our friends. There is no way to avoid this fact of our evolved consciousness. Reason can only counsel us to accept this fact, and to make the best accomodations of our instincts as we can.

The white race is a biological reality. See Cavalli-Sforza's work. Whites form an evolutionary unit. We are in fact a single organism, when viewed from a macro-evolutionary point of view. And we will react as any organism when threatened by parasites and preditors.

Now, this white organism is in fact beset by enemies both foreign and domestic. We find it distasteful to discuss this openly (the regulars on OD being notable exceptions to that general rule), but the objective fact of a threat to our white organism clearly exists. Our external enemies, consisting of the entire Third World, Islam, and China, want what we have and will be pleased to disenfranchise us if we're stupid enough to let them. China - openly racialist and cock-sure of itself - will emerge as a monstrous Hegemon that will demand that we whites kow-tow to them. Muslims bomb us in an attempt to destroy our common parasites. Haitians invade our coasts. Our parasitic domestic enemies (nameless here forevermore!), want to divide and conquer us.

Thus, the white organism has enemies, and as I understand it, Darwinian theory predicts an inevitable collective response.

That response may be that the white race will finally wake up to the fact that it is a single, evolutionary unit, and that if it wishes to continue its journey towards its evolutionary destiny it must unite. We may be seeing it now in the unification of Europe, the rise of nationalist parties in Europe like the Vlaams Blok, and with Russia moving closer to NATO. This war, since it presents such a clear external threat, will help drive that movement. In that regard, worse is better for us.

It won't happen as quickly as I'd prefer, but I do not doubt that it is happening. Again, we don't like to talk about it, but scrape away all the PeeCee niceness, and we see that this war is not about religion or about Muslims hating our freedom. It is all about the reality race - the simple fact that genetic groups act like single organisms when viewed from 30,000 feet. And sooner or later, that simple truth will become manifest, despite all of our vain attempts to deny it.

Walter

mwdallas

2002-12-06 22:50 | User Profile

We are in fact a single organism, when viewed from a macro-evolutionary point of view.

I think it's more accurate to say that we constitute a biological unit, for purposes of selection at the group level, but you have grasped the fundamental essence of the situation.

If you haven't yet, you must read the works on multilevel selection and group evolutionary strategies by D.S. Wilson, Matt Ridley, et al.

D.S. Wilson's latest is discussed here:

[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=11&t=2588]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...=ST&f=11&t=2588[/url]