The suicide of Europe proceeds in another way as well: lucianne.com today reprints a news item that says that henceforth Muslim policemen in Britain will be allowed to wear turbans instead of helmets. A poster on that site coyly asks what the Christian policemen in Saudi Arabia will wear.

Someone should send the UK’s police authorities copies of Bat Ye’Or’s great work The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. Chapter Two (“The Era of Conquests”) describes how the military conquest of country after country was facilitated by the prior, gradual immigration of Muslims, who then helped the invading armies.

Meanwhile, the Pope has “no problema” with this construction of a Satanic European super-state. He just wants a phrase stuck into its constitution mentioning Europe’s Christian heritage. Then he’ll be satisfied.

The readiness of the nations of Europe to hand away their sovereignty like this, with barely an acknowledgement of how radical a step this is, suggests that the process, as inconceivably horrible as it is, cannot be stopped at present. It is the culmination of the grand illusions of leftism, and as such will probably only be opposed in a serious way AFTER it has been institituted and its reality starts to become apparent. As Washington said, people must feel an evil, before they will see it.

Add to this the list of evils posted by Mr. Kalb and one has to ask: Which is worse, the utopian hell being created by the Tranzis or the hell of living in dhimmitude under the Muslims? One can almost, in a way, understand the French National Front’s sudden bizarre embrace of the Muslims. They might be thinking that there is a better chance of the French surviving as a people under Islam than under the Tranzi EU. As far as the Pope in concerned, I think it’s been pointed out before that he’s basically no longer functioning intellectually and that official pronouncements are being generated by the Tranzi-controlled bureaucracy.

I can just see it. The EU is about to vote to legalize abortion in all member states. Some parlimentarian stands up and says: “But wait, we have this preamble which talks about God and Christianity.” Then everyone says: “Right, we can’t vote to force abortion on those countries that don’t want it.”

Yeah, sure.

The fact is that just last week or so the Pope was encouraging Croatia to apply for membership knowing full well what the EU is about.

There needs to be a movement in America protesting the EU consolidation of Europe. Not that that would have any immediate practical effect on what’s happening over there, but it is very troubling that this THING is taking over our common civilization and no prominent or popular voices in America (not to mention Europe) are seriously opposing it. The U.S. elites have consistently cheered for European unification, which suggests they would have “no problema” if the same kind of arrangements were proposed for us as well.

What is the Western world now but 700 million Eloi?

“There needs to be a movement in America protesting the EU consolidation of Europe.” — Lawrence Auster

I agree, and furthermore I feel we in the U.S. are morally justified in protesting the submergence of Britain more than we are the other countries of the Old World, in the black maw of the E.U. Leviathan, since she’s our Mother Country! If the daughter can’t intervene to help the Mother, what sense has anything at all? After all, we would expect the same in the opposite direction — if the U.S. found itself in dire straits, who is prepared to say it wouldn’t be completely right and proper for England — more so than for, say, Spain, France, or Germany — to intervene in order to help set us on the right path again? Blood is thicker than water, and spiritual blood (my own ties to the Anglosphere are purely spiritual, since I have no British ancestry at all) is the thickest of all.

All of which implies we are in for a long, hard fight against a system that many of us might never see changed. Orwell might have been wrong about the poverty that he predicted would accompany Big Brother’s society. Which is scary because lack of poverty will sap motivation from most resistors.

It does seem true that we must congregate and support one another through formal associations. Only in associations can we have the greatest effect. What is missing are stories (fictional and nonfictional) about what the members of the associations would do and say when faced with everyday problems.

For example, traditionalists must have an automatic response to a human alien-citizen that wanted to join the traditionalists’ club even though the alien did not have the requisite cultural or racial heritage. Traditionalists must be able to say how they can compete economically against aggressive neighbors whose women work outside the home. They must be able to say how they can defend against large armies based substantially on women soldiers.

I can see the headlines now. “Anne Frank’s Hiding Place Destroyed in Blaze.” The details will follow. “Overnight fire burned venerated ‘hiding place’ to ground last night. Mohammed Koran, the local Fire Chief, said arson was cause of blaze. Several juveniles from the Hamas Community Center under arrest for crime. Citing fiscal restraints imposed by the economic downturn and high taxes imposed by the Muslim European Union, the mostly Muslim city council has already indicated a rebuilding would probably be low on its list of priorities.”

Overseas, President Chelsea Rodriguez-Clinton’s State Department spokesperson said she was saddened by the news and added that Jewish leaders, who have repeatedly been warned about maintaining such a provocative symbol in a mostly Muslim neighborhood, must share part of the blame. She compared the inaction on the part of Jewish leaders to the old fashioned and “unfair” practice of white contractors working in all black neighborhoods.

An crucial feature of the constitutional proposal, reported at VFR previously I think, is that it removes the right of member states to leave the EU unilaterally. This provision seems hardly to be reported at all in most of the “debate” on the subject, e.g. on the BBC. (A while ago the Telegraph had an article expressing puzzlement about the failure of the UK Tories to take up this side of the issue.)

Besides legally abolishing national sovereignty, this provision has some problematic implications, it seems to me, considering that the European military consists of powerful _national_ forces including the British and French nuclear arsenals. Is anyone seriously contemplating handing over the control of the nuclear forces to the European federal government? (As far as I know the British armed forces’ officers still each swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen, for example—not even to that new-fangled Parliament.) On the other hand, so long as the arsenals and other major forces remain national, we have a situation where no one will be able to stop Britain, France or Germany from leaving Europe if it so decides, but any small member-nation that wishes to leave will presumably find itself militarily occupied by powerful neighbours enforcing the EU law. This seems a little lopsided.

Meanwhile, isn’t it remarkable that the nations of Eastern Europe, in light of their recent experiences (and at least in the case of Poland its supposedly intense religious and nationalist feeling), are falling over themselves to give up their newly-won sovereignty to a remote atheistically-inclined bureaucratic authority?

The fact that Poland was so overwhelmingly in favor of the EU shows that there is no opposition to globalism. If Corsica or the Basques ever got their independence, the first thing they probably would do is apply for EU membership.

To parapharase the old sci-fi movies: “Give up [conservative] Europeans, resistance is futile.” Or, as Roy Orbison sang, “It’s Over.”

Forgive me for taking this back to the home front for a moment, but I just received an e-mail from Phyllis Schlafley about a proposed change to our own Constitution that is just too disturbing for words: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/june03/03-06-18.shtml

A House of Representatives appointed rather than elected???

Scary, but I can’t see it passing a vote or being signed into law by Bush this close to an election.

My own pet proposal; limit the right to vote in Congressional and Presidential elections only to those citizens prepared to perform a term of national service.

One commentator suggested that the system must be allowed to fail before people will change it. This is one reason why I and other “nut balls” voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000 even though we knew he was going to lose. (I will let Pat defend his current ideas.) As I saw it, Bush stood for maintaining the status quo with the backs of the leaderless, hard-working conservatives while his veiled parasitic and self-serving liberal ideas continued to feed on his base of supporters. On the other hand, perhaps he believes he is already in wonderland and is just giving the rest of us a hand.

Posted by: Shawn on June 17, 2003 11:01 PM
“My own pet proposal; limit the right to vote in Congressional and Presidential elections only to those citizens prepared to perform a term of national service.”

shawn slips down the rabbit hole and takes a seat with bush at the tea party

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on June 16, 2003 07:31 PM
“The readiness of the nations of Europe to hand away their sovereignty like this, with barely an acknowledgement of how radical a step this is, suggests that the process, as inconceivably horrible as it is, cannot be stopped at present. It is the culmination of the grand illusions of leftism, and as such will probably only be opposed in a serious way AFTER it has been institituted and its reality starts to become apparent. As Washington said, people must feel an evil, before they will see it.”

ut-oh, hold on tight, i think my world is going topsy-turvy.

didn’t i read someplace where l.a. was making some silly nonsense accusation of someone being a nazi because he was opposed to nation-states like the e.u.?

never mind that a nazi would be a nationalist socialist and thus in favor of nation-states, what’s got me now walking on the ceiling is the reason auster gives on why he’s opposed to the e.u..

i cans see how auster would have fun calling people naughty names for being opposed to nation-states, (having his cake); while being opposed to nation-states himself, (and eating it to), but isn’t just a tiny bit greedy, and just a tiny bit illogical?

Posted by: abby on June 17, 2003 11:56 PM

“shawn slips down the rabbit hole and takes a seat with bush at the tea party”

Good to see that you can deal with the substance of an argument rationally. And you even manged to avoid calling me a neoconservative. Well done.

Posted by: abby on June 18, 2003 01:49 AM

“never mind that a nazi would be a nationalist socialist and thus in favor of nation-states”

This is incorrect. National Socialism was an imperialist ideology that sought to create a “Greater Reich” through the forced incorporation of much of Eastern Europe. Thus National Socialism was in truth an anti-nationalist creed.

Posted by: Shawn on June 18, 2003 02:17 AM
“This is incorrect. National Socialism was an imperialist ideology that sought to create a “Greater Reich” through the forced incorporation of much of Eastern Europe.”

i’m assigning shawn the seat with the overturned creamer. for what better way can i reward someone whose words sound like english but have no meaning at all. or at least not a logical meaning.

or to put it a different way. nation-states come into existence via consolidation. national socialism as you just said was imperialist, i.e. it favored consolidation. ergo, nazism favored a nation-state. nation-states are what you get when there’s consolidation of smaller sovereignties into a larger whole.

“Thus National Socialism was in truth an anti-nationalist creed.”

not quite, it just favored the large consolidated kind. what it didn’t respect was sovereignty.

btw, i don’t think you’re a neocon, just a run of the mill evangelical american exceptionalist.

Posted by: abby on June 18, 2003 02:53 AM

“nation-states are what you get when there’s consolidation of smaller sovereignties into a larger whole.”

A nation is what you get when there is voluntary consolidation of smaller soveriegnties, based on shared ethnicity, language, faith and culure.

An empire is what you get when a nation enslaves another nation or nations with the intent to rule over them.

They are not the same thing.

The Nazi’s were attempting to build an empire by force and by enslavement, therefore they were anti-nationalists.

“what it didn’t respect was sovereignty.”

Nationalism is the respect of other nations soveriegnty, unless that nation attacks you. You cannot claim to be a nationalist and not respect the soveriegnty of other nations.

“just a run of the mill evangelical american exceptionalist”

Actually I’m a traditionalist Lutheran and I dont believe in the notion of American exceptionalism. Try again.

shawn,

glad to hear you’re not an evangelical, i’ll leave the american exceptionalist aspect alone for now.

nation-states have both the characteristics of a nation and of an empire.

they are an empire in so far as diverse peoples are brought together under a single authority.

they are a nation in so far as there are unifying conformities. these unifying conformities are not natural in the nation state, but are brought to bear upon the diverse peoples, like language, monetary etc.

it’s hard to think of a better example than the nazis who were more than willing to kill en mass in order to force uniform conformity on diverse peoples who would not naturally form a nation.

http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/foreignpolicy/nationstate.htm