Reform or Schism

Europe’s economically developed, politically democratic, and ideologically left-liberal led societies suffer from a shared ailment. It is an internal security problem tied to a bankrupt foreign policy. The terminology profiles Western Europe –to separate it from the European Union’s Central European zone.

Liberalism’s mutant on western fringe of the continent resembles its American variety. Its exponents are incapable to cope with the challenges their communities face and demonstrate that their dogmatic crisis management amplifies vicissitudes. At the root of failure is that the ruling elite claims to stand on the peak of a self-erected pyramid of multicultural virtue, and assert that they can handle the collision of conflicting traditions.

Actual reality falls short of an infallible, and not-to-be-questioned, theory. The alerted public’s reaction makes this blemish into the dominant theme of national affairs. The response of the united political class, regardless of the nominally competing parties it includes, is twofold. One claim is that the problem of integrating groups that reject the order of the society that protects them, does not exist -or is vastly exaggerated. The adjunct is that, a moral duty exists to accept anyone as a refugee, even if he is an adventure-driven, criminal migrant. Since a moral duty is a qualitative obligation, society is lectured that its duty to admit and to support, knows no quantitative limits.

The other answer to politically incorrect concerns is to cite them as evidence of immoral lack of solidarity of racist nationalists. In fact, resistance to uncontrolled migration can only be tagged with the distorted versions of these terms. The skeptics wish to preserve the culture of their community, point to the limits of assimilation that depends on relative numbers, and the rejectionist culture of the imported settlers. They also admit guilt by wanting to cater to their country’s interests before that of others. By liberal standards, this fulfills the criterion of “chauvinism”. Frequently, migrants represent not only an incompatible religious background and concept of the good society, but are also of a different race. So, the charge of “racism” is invoked. You win if the confused become persuaded that your opponents are “evil”.

Even if denied by Western elites, their zone suffers from significant migration-related problems –terrorism, hostile parallel societies that reject laws that ignore the Sharia, and welfare careers. A dispute arises, whether there could be problems, and if one is found, is it to be denied as “crisis management”. While the “East” sees its national independence threatened by rejectionist migrants, the “West” ponders whether there is a moral duty to abandon the way of life the indigenous prefer, to please illegal entrants that reject it. Central and eastern Europeans –recent EU members- give responses that differ from the PC of the West’s political class. Concurrently, a growing segment of Western Europe’s population is disillusioned by their elite’s doctrinaire policies that burden the average person. Therefore, election results there express impatience with something that is a theory of redemption for some, but that involves a bad praxis, lived by the many.

The upshot is that deepening cleavages appear in Europe. They confront the EU with a reform, or with a schism. One: The elites continue to refuse to hear their peoples, and as this sinks in, traditional parties are jettisoned. Two: Europe’s center, meaning the EU’s “east”, solidifies into a block – the Visegrád 4. As that new EU drifts away from the old –with Brexit we might speak of the extremities’ secession- and with a rift threatening, the case for a reform becomes persuasive.

What is the complaint of what the West calls, as a put down, the “East”? The “poor and primitive” regard, as the key purpose of any order, the protection of values and, above all, the preservation of the nation as expressed by its state. Attribute this to experienced oppression by Nazis and Communists who, to absorb them, tried to extinguish the national identity of the conquered. Such aims defy the West’s pet approach, where leaders find fulfillment in a cultural amalgam in which all merge in the bliss of moral relativism.

To the disdained “East”, identity is linked to “nation” shielded by “sovereignty”. Therefore, the integrity of protected borders, the ability to determine “with whom we wish to live together”, is essential because “a nation without borders is no nation”. Proceeding from there, it demands an EU that pursues its original purpose, namely, stability and the protection of small nations.

Juxtaposed are the goals of the west’s political class. It sees in nations and their states a hindrance for the global state in which all can be brothers. In that context, those who wish to maintain their identity in a sovereign national state, are “nationalists”, therefore “Nazis” (your local “Antifa” will confirm). To the extent that a nation clings to its identity, chauvinistic yahoos are detected. For those that see in uncontrolled immigration a police problem, the diagnosis is “racist”.

Since across Europe elections show disapproval of the internationalist left-liberal political class and its parties, the establishment reacts. The retort is more palliative than curative, as it attempts to treat the problem by better PR to shape the public’s thinking – expressed by talk about the “education” of citizens.

The instrument for “educating” the unenlightened is not the outright lie but the silent treatment. It affects whatever is “undesirable” by classifying it – especially crime by migrants- as “untypical” occurrences unrelated to migration. The “people’s enlightenment” that overlooks whatever could provoke resistance to uncapped migration and its central distribution is wide spread and not limited to the EU. The perusal in different languages 15 dailies, consulting five weeklies, watching 5-6 newscasts, and receiving several newsletters, gives rise to a stunning impression.

The hush-up campaign benefits from the cooperation of elites’ press. The media stands out in understating disturbing matters. By theory’s postulate, blemishes should not be, and if they occur, they are to be processed by sweeping them off the table like breadcrumbs. Through informal censorship, this tactic intends to assure that the “led” will only be fed the kind of filtered data that it can digest. As a result, what should not be is covered up, and whenever possible what occurs is not reported. An example is that only 10% of the throng invited into Germany works –and that at the current rate, the rest will become employed in fifty years. What a proof of Juncker’s delusional assurance that, to rescue it, Europe must rely on unlimited immigration!

The second matter is the treatment of migrant criminality. Its additional immediate effect is perceived by the average person as clogging the welfare system and the milking of retirement funds by bringing in beneficiaries without an input.

A local report provides food for thought by reporting that a migrant from Eritrea has been stabbed to death. The police, asking for help, looked for “a man”. PC’s devotees are naïve to believe that such phrasing will keep the public from inserting a defining adjective once the dots are connected. That the manicured news also reveal is that, if an uninvited migrant is the victim, it is OK to identify him. However, once a migrant is the perpetrator, then, to avoid “racism” the suppression of the facts is justified. Cute aspects of this come from the US, too. Such as emphasizing, so that you know whom to blame- that terrorist X became radicalized in America.

The outstanding, honestly frank example, for problem solving by squashing “the news that do not fit”, comes from the red-green run City Council of Zürich (Switzerland). That institution grew concerned that reports about criminal migrants that lead the statistics –and who populate the jails- might confirm prejudices. Such as that, persons with certain backgrounds are more inclined to rob, rape and kill than the average. Therefore, to derail populist reactionary bigots, the police may not make public the name, the religion, the nationality, or the race of criminals.

Will smothering reality work and bridge the gap between promise and performance? Hardly. The more neutral the terms used to anonymize crimes, the greater will be the suspicions of those that are granted an exposure to the news.

Europe’s and America’s ruling political class can use its control of the bureaus and the media to black out unfitting news and to limit the circulation of what is reported. That amounts to a band-aid over an inflamed sore. At first, the ailment remains hidden. Then the puss will break through and propels the victim into the operating room for an amputation.

Now, from the internal crisis of “old Europe’s” countries, back to the EU’s crisis expressed by its east-west split.

With the passage of time, groups and institutions can be menaced by developments that cast doubt on their legitimacy. The reaction can be manifold. One is adjustment that we usually call “reform”. Many of old institutions we know –such as the Catholic Church- went through several cycles of challenge and reform. There is, however, another, frequent response. The more an institution is confronted by fundamental questions, the more hard-line, inflexible, and fanatically assertive can be its response. Briefly put, the front is made to harden; the stance taken is increasingly extreme until the edifice collapses.

We might now be confronted by a comparable reaction of intercontinental elites and their institutions, such as the EU. In America, the glass-like inflexibility takes the form of the vitriolic resistance to accept that, a majority has determined that a disapproved person shall be President. Ultimately, the style in which the incumbent is fought might prove to be the winning argument for a second term. Some foes achieve to become claims in favor of what they attack.

As for the EU, the errors committed under its cover have created resistance. That redoubled the centralism of the directing bureaucratic class, in the hope that pressure will squash dissent. Besides the success of EU-skeptical parties, the “rebellion of the periphery” is the reaction to encroachment and stubbornly pursued destructive policies. Accordingly, Britain opted for the Brexit, which could have been avoided by a few concessions to guarantee that Britain remains British. Comparable reactions roll in from the EU’s eastern edge. The “Visegrád 4“ are gaining and their resistance to Brussels elicits growing support and appreciation.

Instead of taking the “disobedient” seriously, “The Center” deals with complaints –in the manner of Soviet Panzer-Communism- that is, by crushing those that dare to articulate dissent. Talks about the details of Brexit reveal that the EU’s wishes to punish Britain for its temerity by ruining her. The goal here, as well as in the tandem case  of the “V4”, is to demonstrate that pauperism is the alternative to submission. Numerous warnings, mainly backed by the Liberal and the Leftist fraction of MEPs, are issued that, those that do not go along should count on EU sanctions.

At least so far, extortion has not worked. Newly won, and therefore appreciated, independence being at stake, the resistance, especially the Polish and the Hungarian one, is resolute. Ultimately, the hard-line offensive, in a “damn the torpedoes” manner, to achieve a unitary European state, might end in proving a point. It is, what does not bend, must break.


Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner