The debate over direction, in this new Century, will be based very largely on perspective. Political alliances and policy decisions will depend upon personal attributes: Whether one sees the world as growing or shrinking; whether one sees the material or spiritual as more important; whether one finds moral strength in family or in the promised security of a large collective; whether one is more inclined to take a long term, generation spanning view of Society, or to seek more immediate near term advantage. In this over-view, it is likely that political issues will be framed more alike in both Europe and America than was ever true in the Century just ended; that social and political dynamics will--at least in the near term--be quite similar on both sides of the Atlantic.
The reason may be found in a general focus on what has been termed "globalization," and on demographic movements, in part encouraged by business interests, and in part reflecting the bizarre ethos of the Euro-American Left. That our respective economies are much more dependent upon international trade than ever before in history, is a given. That that reality need change any of our differing cultural values, or lead to any sort of amalgamation of peoples, is very far from given. That the realities of commerce negate the realities of biology, kinship or social philosophy, or negate any of the factors that make each individual, and every race, nation, tribe and family unique, is a gross non sequitur. That the reality of global trade need have anything at all to do with the realities of sex, or the respective roles of the sexes in any culture, is almost delusional.
So, too, we would suggest, is the idea that surrender to an agreed International Force, is in any real respect preferable to surrender to a conquering adventurer. However great our desire for peace, the option of peace by surrender is no different in the 21st Century than it was in the 18th or 19th. And surrender to a collective, being welded into a monolith, is no different than surrender to a monolith already formed.
Most of the Nations of Western and Central Europe are in the active process of consolidating a trade and commercial alliance into a Federal Union. In this, they are now far along in the course of setting up the institutions of a central authority. Within this context, the developing collective structure has already asserted itself, intruding even into the most purely social and local concerns--not an encouraging sign. The EU has basically told its members that they must accept uniform policies for the treatment of immigrants and contract labor, and a uniform policy that denies the importance of sexual difference and traditional--instinct defined--sex roles, within their respective communities.
Why this growing collectivist assault on the cultural diversity and varied social mores of the European peoples. Indeed, an even more primary question is, why is there any rush at all to end the historic independence of European peoples? Surely the answer is not readily apparent.
The advantages of free trade, however great, are not dependent in any respect upon uniform treatment of contract labor, citizenship rights or the establishment of a Federal policy against sexuality. It appears that there is a serious overreach by those on the Left to move all of Europe in the direction of egalitarian theories; theories for which acceptance is demanded without argument, without evidence of any sort of validity in the real world, or of any benefit whatsoever to the people from whom submission is demanded.
It is amazing, that the heirs of many who risked everything to deny both Napoleon and then Hitler's dream of a United Europe, would believe that what was unacceptable through conquest of arms is somehow beneficial by agreement. The inference of union by conquest may be bondage and tyranny; but is the long-term prospect for union by an agreement, which presupposes the values of utilitarian collectivists, really more promising? It was in an appeal to the German mob, that Hitler claimed justification. While Hitler's collectivist egalitarianism was primarily limited to the Germans--he was hardly an advocate of egalitarian World Government--one should take a little closer look at his methodology.
In what was tantamount to an endorsement of the Utilitarian appeal to the greatest good for the greatest number, Hitler ruthlessly swept aside every aspect of Germanic heritage not conducive to his immediate objectives. Centuries of diversity among the German States were suppressed, with the stroke of a pen, into the new monolithic State that spoke with one voice to one end. The EU may seem a broader consolidation--for the moment less extreme. Can anyone doubt that the entity created will prove a tempting object for the next wave of Socialist demagogues? And with improved communication--the improved opportunity to propagandize on an ever grander canvas;--who can doubt that demagogues seeking Hitler's charisma will not vie to exploit every economic upheaval, to do to all of Europe what Hitler did to Germany? Even now, you see small mobs of the discontented: the raw material for the rhetoric of grievance and promise, which has swept demagogues to power over the centuries. What is there in the EU that can prevent this?
The one defense was in a sense of nationhood; of individual heritages more important than the economics of the moment; of cultures that celebrated the wisdom of the Fifth Commandment, whether or not one was personally religious, and honored progenitors as role models. With such gone and a new Central Power that shows no respect for true diversity--in fact, treats any recognition of the profound differences between peoples as injustice--fully in place; what force is there to stand against the mob? It will surely not be found in a recognition of the importance of rooted families; of the particular struggles and progress of great achievers, the fruits of their achievement passed down in old lineage with ancient values. That is part of the old Europe being systematically destroyed. (Indeed, which of the "Conservative" parties in Europe, today, is even willing to address the question of enduring racial, ethnic or familial differences? Witness the absurd pact that the British Tories recently made with Labour, over immigration.)
The prevailing newspeak would suggest that only animals have meaningful pedigrees. You may still trace the blood lines of horses, dogs, cattle and swine, and draw conclusions as to attributes, aptitudes and temperament. But apply the same reasoning to any sub-group of Man, and you will be assailed with venom. When the Left has no answer to reality, it substitutes rant, vilification and lies. There are many examples of this discussed in those internet links found below.
And yet, if breeds of men differ no more than breeds of dog, there is a manifest injustice to all of the disparate peoples in Europe in the pretense that they are somehow interchangeable. There is a great body of empirical data to demonstrate the enormous price that Americans have paid for the cult of equality; a cost that has spared none of the varied elements of our diverse societies. Yet to our enduring shame, few are willing to even acknowledge the facts, much less study them. As man is more complicated than dog, the reasonable expectation would be that the differences between breeds of men would be more carefully studied than those between breeds of dog; but it has not been so for more than a generation. Instead, we have been offered a series of deceptive verbal arguments; each seeking to explain away, by rhetorical contrivance, the predictable effect of pretending a human interchangeability that simply does not exist.
For two centuries, the egalitarian myth was premised upon a combination of Lamarckian theory, arguments by exception or in mitigation of an overwhelming body of empirical evidence demonstrating a much less plastic humanity, and liberal aspersions of the methods, motives and integrity of those who collected or analyzed the data. (Beware, also, of the use of new classifications that confuse rather than clarify.) In his 2000 State Of The Union address, America's master dissembler, President William J. Clinton, signalled still another approach: Those mapping the DNA markers that control the hereditary component of life, he told us, would soon announce that all humans share a 99.99% common DNA; that we are one species, one family, with any genetic differences among us being insubstantial and unimportant.
A closer look, however, reveals only another dishonest argument; another example of a verbal construct that proves nothing at all in terms of any real human drama. Does it matter in terms of the social implications of a questioned mixture of human types, if the differences between people are determined by 30,000 DNA combinations or 30,000,000--or for that matter only five or six? Is it not the reality and extent of those differences--not the code that causes them--which will determine the dynamics of any social interaction? Put another way, the fact that former President Clinton and the anteater have 99% common DNA, does not give Mr. Clinton 99% of the anteater's ability to suck up an ant hill; nor does it give the anteater, 99% of the former President's ability to lie convincingly.
The fact that only 30,000 markers are in play, will not give the White Caucasian European woman transported to the Kalahari, 99% or even 1% the Bush Woman (Cappoid's) ability to store future nourishment in her buttocks (like a Camel in his hump)--not even if she attends mixed schools, or is forced to undergo "sensitivity training." Neither will such imagined similarity, change the West African Negro races into distance runners, nor the East Africans into sprinters; nor make the Amazon rain forest Indians as sociable as the African rain forest Negroes. Nor will they produce any Mozarts in the Australian Bush, nor make the English temperament indistinguishable from the Italian.
What similarities in DNA will not do, either, is provide a reason why it is in anybody's interest to pretend a greater similarity among the Types of Mankind than actually exists; why it is supposed to be in anybody's interest to propagate a lie!
While America is not in the EU, there is a considerable American presence at the heart of the movement. As Europeans reeled and staggered after the vast destruction of the Second World War, the American Left began an immediate campaign to promote some form of Federal structure for Europe. As Europeans look back at this period, they may think that this was altruism on the part of those running the American foreign service; that as the push seemed bipartisan, it reflected some sort of consensus of an American population desirous of seeing others benefit, as we had benefited, from a Federal Union. But the reality was very different.
The cadres of theorists, drawn to State Department careers for more than 60 years, are neither representative of America's interests nor of Americans in general. Nor do they reflect any traditional Western culture. Rather, you will find the type, in embryonic undergraduate form, in those once prestigious American Universities, now clearly dominated by a "Liberal" mindset. They are not those conspicuous for their patriotism; nor for their respect for the heritage of others. The appeal of America's foreign service, to such, is as an opportunity to remake the World according to the unproven, airborne, theories of the compulsive egalitarian.
The intellectual roots are more complex, but we can offer some conceptual threads that may have had an influence. During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the "New Deal" in America launched various "make work" projects--similar to some the National Socialists employed in Germany to the same end in the same era. Under the Roosevelt version of this collectivist palliative for economic distress, there were Federal Writers' Projects, which proved particular boons for Leftist wordsmiths. Among other resulting projects were a Debate Handbook and related treatises designed to orient the High School or College debater to the Left.
To the propagandists who constructed these tools for indoctrination, the issue was not whether Mankind should seek World Government, but how to achieve one. On the parallel concept of Communism, the debate was slanted not to whether it was good or evil, but to whether it was practical to achieve. It is arguable, at least, that the notion of one humanity, acting together to a secular purpose, went out in terms of Western Philosophy with the Tower of Babel. But these handbooks did not reflect any traditional Western Philosophy.
Another strand in understanding the roots of recent American Foreign Policy may be found in a campaign by the late Norman Cousins, former Editor of the Saturday Review, who specifically targeted College undergraduates and public school teachers' associations in the 1950s and early 1960s. His presentation consisted in first painting a truly terrifying picture of the effects of nuclear war on a civilian population. When he had his audience at the most susceptible point, he would introduce the message: That the future educational emphasis should be only on those qualities that all peoples had in common; that we should minimize attention on that which made any people unique. The idea was that if we ignored those particular values, for which other generations had been willing to fight, we could achieve enduring peace.
This was, of course, merely a call for surrender by subterfuge--by diversion. But Cousins was an effective speaker, and he chose his audiences with care. And as simplistic and really idiotic as his proposal was--dependent not on reason but on generating an atmosphere of fear among his listeners--one cannot look at the official policies of Western Governments today, on either side of the Atlantic, and not see the influence of such strained and tortured reasoning. Yet while many will parrot the argument, almost no one will properly respond:
Those differences, which Cousins would have had us ignore, include all of the qualities for which better men have been willing to die. That alone is no complete refutation for his argument. But it certainly ought to cause us to pause before we cavalierly surrender them.
So, Europe today has its own Norman Cousinses. Yet the obvious question is who each nation really fears? Surely, it is not your neighbors, armed or passive. In Union, you must trust them to do what is right. There is no foundation for increased trust in the arbitrary decision to give them a say in your internal affairs. And it is only common sense, that limiting your ability to fight back, will not render them more conscientious.
Who then do you fear? Ultimately, it must be yourselves. And by the nature of the decision, it is not a fear that you might be unable to resist a future attack upon your freedom or heritage. It appears, rather, to be the threat that you--or your bolder neighbors--might try!
It may be only a surrender by subterfuge. It is a surrender nonetheless.
It should have been a wakeup call to all who adhere to traditional theology, or simply uphold the Western family and thirteen centuries of Chivalric values, when the EU first assailed classic sex roles, or denied the moral and biological importance of normal sexuality. At one stroke, the Union demonstrated both a warped perspective on human function and purpose, and an intolerable intolerance, that cannot be rationally justified.
It should have been a wakeup call to all who respect the nobler quests of the human spirit, when Europe's Social Democrats ostracized Austria for choosing a leader who espoused Austria for the Austrians. Why was the reaction from the European Right so muted. If the idea of Austria for the Austrians offends, what of the implicit counter concept of an Austria without the Austrians?
Nationality is not a game of Musical Chairs. A Nation is composed of unique individuals, who give it its character, ethos and heritage. Anyone who understands the immigration issue; who considers differing birth and maturation rates, aptitudes, and the social interaction of diverse peoples; who knows ought of the history of Rome, or looks at what has already happened in towns in Great Britain and in California; must recognize that anyone who would insist that Austria be forced to accept unwanted immigration is indeed willing to accept the possibility of an Austria without Austrians. Europe without Socialists would be a sounder proposition.
The battle ultimately is between those who celebrate the uniqueness of the individual man or woman--the vast differences in their respective attributes and the significance of their places in the ongoing dynamic of God's Creation--and those who would seek to eliminate human struggle by reducing all humanity to a condition analogous to a planetary ant hill. Those apostles of "human equality," offer compulsion in place of reason; denial in place of truth. They are not fit to be judged as men. It is only in our differences, our inherent inequalities, that we derive any of the qualities that make mankind fit to stand apart; fit to be accorded any special role in the Natural Kingdom.
A time approaches for basic decisions. How your generation resolves the gathering ideological and political confrontation, now materializing, will determine whether you are the proud heirs of the Fathers of Western Civilization, fit to hold heads high and pass on the torch to those who follow; or have devolved into what is little better than a species of social insect, mindlessly accepting a controlled world where there is no longer any place for an individual to put a unique stamp on his family future, lest it cause division in the hive or nest.
As an American, it is neither my right nor my place to tell Europeans how they should resolve this or any other dilemma. Nor do I have any easy solution to offer. But this much is obvious: You will control your own futures, or they will be controlled for you.