Fjordman on Eurabia

Fjordman has written a 15,000 word explication of Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia, called “The Eurabia Code” (also available at Gates of Vienna). Since Bat Ye’or’s groundbreaking account of the construction of Eurabia by the EU bureaucracy in league with the Muslim world is not always easy to follow, readers may welcome Fjordman’s briefer and more accessible treatment.

Fjordman writes:

I wrote it mainly to demonstrate that the thesis presented by Bat Ye’or in her book about Eurabia is probably correct, and that leaders of the European Union have sold out their people and are actively trying to melt Europe and the Arab world into one entity, which Bat Ye’or calls Eurabia. This is the only “melting pot” we have here.

It actually says in plain words in some of the documents I have seen (some are available online) that the “Euro-Mediterranean” should become one entity. In 2004, a permanent Euro-Mediterranean Parliament, consisting of equal numbers of European and Arab parliamentarians, was established to advice on the future integration of this “entity.” I’m European, and I had NEVER even heard of this institution before I found it in an Internet search.

The creation of Eurabia is real, not a conspiracy theory. And it ranks as one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilization. The entire future existence of Europe, the cradle of Western civilization, is now in question. And most Europeans have no idea about this, because European media is absolutely silent about Eurabia.

Bat Ye’or has read my essay and approved of it so far. This essay, or parts of it, can be freely republished by anybody who wants to, as long as Fjordman is credited as the author.

- end of initial entry -

Alan Levine writes;

Was much impressed by the “Eurabia Code.”

I do however have some minor differences with Fjordman’s explanations of how this disastrous situation developed.

1) I think he—and you, in some earlier comments on this subject—attribute more consistency to the development of the EU idea than is actually justified. The first steps toward European unity were made by technocrats like Monnet and by Christian Democrats—middle of the roaders and moderate conservatives associated with the Church. They were disliked and often actively opposed by the socialists of the late ‘40s and ‘50s, who tended to regard the Coal and Steel community and what came after as a Christian Democratic or even a Church-laid plot. The Gaullists also opposed the early steps toward European unity (which they interpreted as soft on the Germans).

I also think Fjordman misunderstands the aims of the original enthusiasts, who aimed at a loose federation of nation states—not the bureaucratic superstate now in place—designed to restore, not subordinate, European power in the wider world. They were not anti-American. It was only later that the left seized on the “European idea” for its own purposes, as did the Gaullists. Fjordman interestingly documents the latter point. This in no way changes the point that, whatever its original aims, the EU is now a monster. If anything, the extent to which its aims were originally noble should occasion more disgust at how they have been so thoroughly perverted.

2) Fjordman, I think, is inclined to take for granted the lack of danger of (intra-European) national conflicts. It may well be that such conflicts are indeed a thing of the past, but the fear of them is probably the key to whatever positive support or acquiescence underlies the EU.

3) I suspect that you and he are inclined to over-idealize the traditional national states. It is, of course, true that the demonizing of those states is one of the tools of our enemies, but the traditional nation state was only one phase of European development, and had its unattractive features. Many of the most important and creative departures in Europe occurred in the medieval period before nation states existed or they were very weak. or in states that were in no sense nations—i.e., the Austrian empire. I think he is on more solid ground when stressing the difference between nationalism and patriotism, as in Orwell’s brilliant analysis.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 20, 2006 12:43 PM | Send