Europe and America

Studies have established that identical twins separated at birth exhibit very similar physical, psychological, and biochemical traits, regardless of the environment in which they grow up.  They will have similar voices, gestures, tastes, incomes, professions, wives—and similar diseases.  A twin adopted by an Italian firefighter from New Jersey and his brother reared by a Jewish plastic surgeon in Los Angeles are likely to die within a couple of years of each other, and of similar causes.

It is in disease and looming death that Europe (as we know it) and America (as we know her) most tellingly certify that they, too, share the same chromosomes, that they belong to one culture and constitute one civilization.  The same traits of terminal decrepitude are present in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States, including both the primary cause—which is the loss of religious faith—and a number of secondary ones.  These include their ruling elites’ hostility toward all forms of solidarity or coherence of the majority population based on common ancestry and traditional culture; the loss of a sense of place and history; rapid demographic decline—probably irreversible and unparalleled in history—that goes hand in hand with rampant Third World immigration; the collapse of private and public manners and morals; the imposition of “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” and “sensitivity” by despotic means; and the demon-ization and criminalization of any opposition to any of the above.

Dechristianization is surely the key.  The loss of any meaningful religious impulse started with the Renaissance, made a quantum leap in the Enlightenment, and was well-nigh complete when the guns fell silent in the West in 1918.  The result is that, in today’s Britain, France, Belgium, and Germany, more people pray in mosques on Fridays than in churches on Sundays.  Over two thirds of Americans still define themselves as “Christian,” but unbelief and unconventional sects that are “Christian” in name only are on the rise, while canonical denominations are steadily declining.  The number of Americans who have no religion of any kind doubled in the last decade to 30 million, and they dominate the academy, the media, the entertainment industry, “the arts,” business, and politics.

Dechristianization creates unhappy, neurotic, and addictive people.  It makes most Europeans and their overseas descendents quietly miserable, prone to every excess and self-abuse that resolves nothing and demands nothing except more of the same.  It produces the “Stockholm Syndrome” among some who are thirsting for meaning and who are doomed to live in enclaves engulfed by the immigrant deluge.  The fact that increasing numbers of young Europeans are converting to Islam—joining an alien and hostile ghetto within the country of their birth—is not surprising.  Estranged from their parents, ignorant of their culture, ashamed of their history, those youngsters are making a logical step on the path of alienation that alternatively leads to madness, drugs, or suicide.

The loss of a sense of place and history experienced by millions of Westerners—whether they are aware of it or not—is the result of the emergence of a transnational hyperstate in Europe and the quest for uninhibited global dominance by the globalist-Democrat and neoconservative-Republican duopoly in the United States.  These mind-sets, seemingly at odds, are but two aspects of the same emerging global empire: European One-World Social Democrats and American “benevolent global hegemonists” are also closely related, if not identical.

The former advocate “multilateralism” in the form of an emerging “international community” controlled by the United Nations and adjudicated by the International Criminal Court (ICC).  As an interim step, they favor the transfer of sovereign prerogatives to regional groupings exemplified by the European Union.  In contrast, the neoconservative urge for uninhibited physical control of other lands and peoples resembles the New European Order of six decades ago and the “Socialist Community” that succeeded it in Eastern Europe.  Both multilateralists in Europe and neocons in Washington share the same distaste for traditional societies and cultures.  Echoing the revolutionary dynamism and the historicist messianism common to fascists and communists, Michael Ledeen says that “creative destruction” is America’s eternal mission and the reason America’s “enemies” hate her: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”  The proponents of this view have staunch allies in Europe’s neo-Marxists.  They share the goal of protecting the stability of a universal institutional framework; they only disagree about the ways and means of doing so.

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the outlook seemed pretty grim for the left, but the end of the Cold War has cleared the way for the rise of a new global empire and the realization that new possibilities are available to the revolutionaries who want to move beyond the Gramscian “long march.”  In the apparent defeat of revolutionary struggle—epitomized by the triumph of liberal capitalism over bolshevism—they have found the seeds of future victory for their neo-Marxist paradigm, which global empire makes possible by eradicating traditional structures capable of resistance.

Global empire is an ally of the revolution desired by neo-Marxists not only because it destroys the remnants of the old order, as Ledeen gloats, but because it contains the germ of another form of globalization: the counterempire that will be made possible by demographic change within the West.  Edward Gibbon could have been discussing today’s Marseilles or Los Angeles when he wrote of the inhabitants of late imperial Rome sinking “into a vile and wretched populace, which must, in a few generations, have been totally extinguished, if it had not been constantly recruited by the manumission of slaves and the influx of strangers.”

The revolutionary character of the project of global empire is revealed in the mantra of “Race, Gender, and Sexuality,” now elevated to the status of the postmodern philosopher’s stone.  “Race, Gender, and Sexuality” are the Force that moves the linear historical process forward, toward the grand Gleichschaltung of all nations, races, and cultures that will mark the end of history.  “Race, Gender, and Sexuality” have replaced the proletariat as both the oppressed underclass (hence the cult of nonwhite, nonmale, nonheterosexual victimhood) and as the historically preordained agent of revolutionary change.

The Worker in the heyday of Soviet socialist realism was white, muscular, blonde, unmistakably “straight,” and often accompanied by the equally Aryan-looking she-peasant.  (A superb specimen can still be seen at the entrance of Moscow’s Pavilion of Science and Industry.)  Such images have no place in the new pantheon that was initially dominated by Mao, Che, and Ho, followed by Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, and “Princess Di” (an honorary nonwhite par excellence), and now by assorted gangsta rappers, drag queens and nonhuman cult figures.  The negative, bourgeois-capitalist stereotypes of yore (top hats, cigars, tuxedos, dollar-sign cuff links) have likewise been replaced by the universal Dead White Male (or by any non-self-hating European, of whatever sex, age, or class, who is still alive).

Classical Marxism found the dynamics of revolution in the inevitable conflict between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat that has nothing to sell but its labor and nothing to lose but its chains.  The system was self-referential and, therefore, fatally flawed, but, in the late 19th century, it seemed to possess a degree of quasiscientific neatness.  Latter-day Marxist revolutionaries go beyond any recognizable variety of dialectical materialism, however, by introducing a wholly metaphysical concept of victimhood and an array of associated special-rights claims.  Those claims are invariably based on the alleged victim’s “otherness” vis-à-vis the white European (American, Australian, not to mention South African) oppressor.

As for demography, the grim statistics are familiar to the curious: Europe is dying.  North American Europeans are reproducing below replacement levels and, within a decade, will start the precipitous decline that has already taken place in Europe.  “Child-free” is used as a legitimate lifestyle term among American yuppies, on par with “fat-free” and “drug-free.”  At the same time, the share of the world population of the misnamed “developing countries” will exceed 90 percent by the middle of this century.

If these trends continue, within a century, there will be no “Europeans” as we know them, in the Old World or New—members of coherent, well-defined groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors and inhabit defined territories as compact majorities.  While the threat of extinction of an exotic tribal group in Borneo or Amazonia—let alone a species of owl or whale—would cause alarm and prompt activism among the ruling elites, those same elites regard any mention that Europeans are now, literally, an endangered species as inherently racist.  Each ethnic and racial group is a treasure to humanity, save the Europeans and their overseas descendants.

In the process of Euro-annihilation, immigration is an essential tool of revolutionary change.  By allowing a vast subculture of often-hostile immigrants to emerge within their societies, the dominant elites in all Western nations have permitted the emergence of an alternative social and political structure, of which Islamic terrorism is but one consequence.  By seeking to appease present and future newcomers by granting them special privileges in the name of diversity, the host countries only whet these aliens’ appetites for more concessions from the aging baby boomers ever more dependent on imported labor to keep them fed, clothed, washed, and medicated.

The masterminds of this crime have made a colossal miscalculation.  They still do not realize that the unassimilated and unassimilable multitudes do not want to be the tools of their Wille zur Macht.  Immigrants have their own instinctive scenario.  That scenario has a Turkish rendering in Germany, Arabic in France, subcontinental in Britain, Oriental in Australia, and Amerindian in the United States.  In all cases, the newcomers share the same contempt for what they perceive as a supine, degenerate host society.  In all cases, the majority of the native-born population opposes immigration, but the ruling elite regards the view of the majority as illegitimate and, therefore, undemocratic.  Democracy, of course, denotes the desirable social and political content of imposed, ostensibly popular decisions.  The outcome—a multiracial society—is preordained; only the process of reaching it is “democratic.”

Anything likely to disrupt it, or any questioning of its assumptions, is a priori criminal.  Hence the hysterical insistence, on both sides of the Atlantic, that the deluge is really a blessing that enriches an otherwise bland and culturally deprived host society.  The notion of assimilation has been abandoned.  (“Para servicio en Español, oprima el dos.”)  Vast tracts of Berlin have been turned into Anatolia; vast tracts of Chicago have been turned into Tijuana.  The masterminds—in Europe and America alike—have yet to learn, however, that these people will not be their pliant tools of revolutionary change.  They do not want to disappear into a postnational Utopia, especially not now that they sense that they can supplant the enfeebled natives and take over this candy store with a busted lock.

In both America and Europe, multiculturalism has ensured that Western nations have lost the capacity to define and defend themselves vis-à-vis others, just as, on both sides of the ocean, most Third World immigrants demonstrably have no sense of kinship with their host societies.  And they have no desire to establish any such kinship—except to partake in their wealth, know their women, and eventually take over their lands—and they nurture a healthy contempt for a society willing to grant them every indulgence without a fight.

Muslims, in particular—their utter disdain for the secular-democratic institutions of their host countries notwithstanding—will gladly invoke those institutions when they clamor for their “rights,” including the “right” of Algerian girls to have their heads covered in French state schools or the “right” of a Muslim child not to face the effrontery of a cross on the wall of an Italian classroom.  Like their Bolshevik predecessors, they demand democratic privileges to organize and propagate their views while knowing that—given the power to do so—they would impose their own beliefs and customs and eliminate all others, on pain of death.

The population explosion and utter dysfunctionality of most Third World societies, coupled with the spiritual enfeeblement and demographic collapse of Europeans old and new, has produced predictable results: a shared death wish.  In all creation, disease and frailty invite predators, as witnessed in the scene of Madame Hortense’s death in Zorba the Greek.  Both the loss of the will to define and defend one’s native soil and the loss of the desire to procreate send an alluring signal to the teeming favellas and kazbahs: Come, for no Western nation has the guts to shed blood—alien or its own—in the name of its own survival.  As Jean Raspail writes in the Afterword to his seminal Camp of Saints, “the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles . . . because they are weapons of self-annihilation.”  Those “moral principles” produce utopianism—the yearning for a God-like absolute freedom that cannot stop short of the freedom to choose death over life—or nihilism, which is the same thing.  Short of a miraculous last-minute recovery, the choice of death will become irreversible within decades.

Are Europeans doomed?  Can a gigantic reversal happen?  A Christian would say that a miracle can and—God willing—will happen.  To a political scientist, the model of recovery requires a catastrophic event—specifically, a colossal, rapidly spreading global economic crisis.  The meltdown would have to be rapid and so comprehensive as to include the collapse of confidence in the ability of governments to offer relief.  A breakdown of the “global economy” would force millions of people to reexamine their lives and their assumptions.  Becoming painfully disillusioned of progress, they would rediscover the value and force of tradition.  The ensuing brutal struggle for diminishing resources would make them drop the neurotic becoming in favor of just being, or surviving.  A global economic collapse would reaffirm the values of historical man in the teeth of his progressivist reduction to technology and intellect.

In the aftermath of economic collapse, children would no longer be seen as an economic burden and a financial liability.  They would regain their traditional value as economic assets and a substitute for nonexistent Social Security and pension systems.  The family would reemerge as the essential social unit.  Amidst collapsing political structures, all ideological “propositions” would be recognized as empty abstracts.  Communities linked to their native soil and bonded by kinship, memory, language, faith, and myth would be revived, and hostile alien ghettos would be expelled.  And, in adversity, the eyes of men would be lifted, once again, to Heaven.

The alternative is the end of the world as we know it—the one that is worth living in.