Treason (III): Cultural versus National Borders

Earlier instalments: Part I, and Part II

Although thought up in Canada, multiculturalism makes the perfect ideology for the E.U., as it already deals with the various (nation) states and ethnicities. If the ideology hadn't already existed, Brussels would have invented it. The artificial witch' brew that is produced in the melting pot makes the E.U. highly allergic to patriotic expressions; it breaks out in a rash each time something occurs that so much as smells like nationalism. But not to worry: such outbreaks are usually swiftly dealt with - preferably by blackmail, nebulous promises, bribes (commonly called financial aid) or a combination of all of the above.

It may not be said overtly, but it is the nature of all, corporations or bureaucracies alike: grow or die. The continent of Europe has few geographical boundaries. Technically it can expand up to the eastern and western shores of both America and Canada. The number one export product of the E.U., is the E.U.: its formation is a trick worthy of repetition elsewhere: after all, what is comes down to, is not just a simple free trade zone like any other, but one huge social contract: the voluntary abolishion of the state in lieu for 'peaceful coexistence' (another anachronistic Soviet remnant) within the Pax Europea.

The E.U. ideally cast the net wide for potential new membership: all Balkan countries, if not already a member - starting with an independent Kosovo (which is a scandal of major proportions and worth a post in itself, currently under production); Turkey; parts of Northern Africa: certainly Morocco and Tunisia; all of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine and at some point in time Belarus ("the last European dictatorship"), and dare I say the Caucasus nations: Georgia, Armenia and oil-rich Azerbaijan and who knows Russia, duly 'reformed' and no longer an economical pauper: we now know the E.U. after all was fine-tuned to converge with the Soviet Union; Israel has obviously been dropped to facilitate dealings with Muslim states, also a story in itself.

There is a breed of E.U. supporter who - like communism before it (and also a formidable success) - seeks to obliterate the existing nation-states and create an artificial, new, historic, and borderless entity with an artificial ethnicity, the Europeans, just as politically and socially engineered as that other non-existing race, the Macedonians. All ingredients for a phony European statehood are in place: flag, anthem, capitol, passport, driving licence, currency, mint, manufacturer's labels: "Made in the E.U.", administration, raising taxes and the redistribution of funds.

On a micro level populations have been made state-dependent, if at least they want to enjoy the benefits and pension plans they have paid for. On a macro level we see a similar mechanism in place: the member states are dependent on Brussels to reap the benefits of what the respective citizens already paid for: commonly in the form of farm subsidies (CAP), export grants, subsidies for underdeveloped regions (cohesion funds), etc. If you'd like to enjoy the freedom of falling off the European administrative radar screen, you'll have to forfeit pensions, medical cover, etc. But as long as people have a reasonable amount of freedom within such limits, and prosperity is high, this isn't experienced as a problem (the social contract).

On the longer term the present isn't a practical state of affairs. Most borders being artificially and rather arbitrarily drawn in the first place - the last great re-arrangements having taken place after World Wars I and II - aberrations came into existence like ethnic and linguistic entities ending up on two sides of the artificial boundery.
So instead we'll strive for a Europe of the regions, for now limited to cultural, civic and economic cooperation between border areas.

But in time, new administrative units will be formed, possibly called Provinces or Departments, that are more culturally and linguistically driven: for example the Department of Limburg will comprise Dutch speaking parts of what is presently Belgium and The Netherlands. The Treaty of Schengen already foresees in free roaming, free trade, etc. This is why asylum seekers entering one Schengen signatory country have in principle free access to all other Schengen member countries. So much for general amnesties of illegal immigrants.

What fills me with suspicion is that the French Gaullists, while their staggering national chauvinism often surpasses that the Sun King - yet are staunch E.U. supporters: former French President Giscard d’Estaing plays a prominent role in the draughting of the infamous Constitution. As we have seen in Bukovsky's speech he was also the one who tipped off former Soviet president Gorbachov of the impending European Federal State.

This gives weight to the argument that Europe - far from being a United States partner - will rather become a U.S. counter-weight, the creation of yet a new bi or tri polar world of super powers. While I'm sure there are at present lots of misguided Europeans that would celebrate such a development, it would nevertheless be a historical drama and a grave mistake: a super-power cannot afford Utopian world views, reflected in almost non-existent defence spending, if surrounded by old-fashioned political power brokers.

In the meantime we forget that flexible international treaties concerning asylum and migration came into existence to facilitate those former Eastern Europeans who were lucky enough to make it over the Iron Curtain: the concrete, barbed wired wall that separated the Communist from the free world. These lenient conditions survive till this day, presently facilitating Europe tragically being overrun by immigrants, some of whom have no intention of integrating themselves, but on the contrary demand that Europeans conform to their specific cultural and religious persuasions, turning would-be member status into one of a unwelcome occupier.

In this they are aided and abetted by Europe's left-leaning multiculturalists who cannot bear the thought of having to live in a homogeneous culture and thus advocate we all follow their arrogant examples in enjoying the barbarian melting pot. In this way an entire continent changes its ethnic, cultural, and religious character, a phenomenon the likes of which not seen since Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.

It is a historical gamble for no good reason other than to realise their ideology of multiculturalism, which - as we have demonstrated in these pages - is based on irrationalities and lies. Considering what's at stake it isn't an exaggeration to state it constitutes treason against Europe's indigenous peoples, who feel left in the lurch by their own governing elites. What to think of the inner cities where the state isn't performing the very first duty: the protection of its citizens. It was to be expected: there are now people seriously calling for private militias, which brings Western Europe at least in entirely new territory, and one step closer to civil war.

To be continued: Part IV