Both the Euro crisis, brought to the fore again by the recent Greek elections, and the anti-Islamic marches, originating in Germany but now moving around Europe, highlight two key problems facing Europe today: immigration and currency woes.
Let’s take the Greek crisis first. There are two competing narratives about who is to blame. One is that Northern Europe is far more productive than Southern Europe. Northern European countries, most conspicuously Germany, are hard-working, productive, and thrifty. They keep their government spending in check and the people work hard enough to afford their social spending. In contrast, the Southern European countries, most conspicuously Greece, are lazy, unproductive, and profligate. They produce very little but enjoy extravagant social programs courtesy of the German taxpayers. In order to fix their own predicament, the Greeks need to work harder and start living within their means.
The other narrative is that the Eurozone is a currency scheme set up for the benefit of the Germans. Germany is an export machine that needs to keep its currency down in order to maximize exports. By shackling its money to that of its weaker neighbours, it ensures that its own currency is weaker than it would be if it still had the Deutsche Mark, enabling it to export more. As well, because the currency of weaker economies is higher than it would otherwise be, they are enabled to buy more German cars than they could if all they had were Liras and Drachmas. So now the Greeks are told to cut government spending by the Germans because they bought too many Audis.
My take on this is that these two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Both contain an element of truth, but the underlying problem is not to be found in Greece or Germany, but rather in Frankfurt. The unified currency is one of the biggest economic mistakes made the Berlin Wall fell. By now this should be obvious to all. I am sure that it is to most EU citizens, particularly the Greeks. But here’s the problem, it isn’t to the elites in Berlin and Brussels and Paris. They seem hell-bent on continuing the project regardless of the damage it inflicts. And if the public votes against it, then it is the election and the public that are wrong, not the unelected non-representatives in another country. The danger inherent in this arrangement is that if the legitimate parties ignore a serious problem, then illegitimate parties will take up the challenge. Take Greece. As a result of the Jan 25 election, two of the top three parties in Greece are The Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza) and Golden Dawn – a violent, overtly fascist party. But hey, what did you expect when the forces of legitimacy champion an austerity program imposed undemocratically on the national government by unelected foreigners?
The second issue, immigration, came to the fore after the latest terrorist attack in Paris. First in Germany, and then spreading throughout many Western European cities, spontaneous but well attended, grass-roots anti-Islamic matches occurred. Again, the elites acted with moral outrage, Angela Merkel in particular, denouncing her own citizens. You know, Angela, given all the problems that Germany has with Muslim immigrants, what with unemployment, crime, lack of assimilation, and the festering of a violent ideology, don’t you think your voters have a legitimate point in there somewhere? Sure, denounce the intemperate remarks and extremist participants if you must, but wouldn’t it be wise to also revamp Germany’s immigration policy, particularly with regard to Muslims? In what way has their presence in large numbers made Germany a better place?
But, as with the currency woes, if legitimate elites ignore the problem, illegitimate forces will fill in the resultant void. While some of these forces are fairly civilized, like UKIP in Britain (which doesn’t stop the elites from denouncing them vociferously), there are many genuinely fascistic parties growing in popularity elsewhere in Europe, a lot of which are funded by Vladimir Putin in order to destabilize his geopolitical foes. For this reason, many on the New Right are openly supportive of Putin and his evil schemes.
What the Eurocrats have ignored or forgotten is that European countries are not multicultural entities. They are nation states, composed (in large part) of people from the same ethnic group and language. Because they ignore this basic fact, they don’t see the damage they cause by scrambling dissimilar people together. For an example on what can happen, take a look at Africa. A lot of Africa’s problems today originate from the fact that its national borders were drawn by colonialists with little regard to tribal boundaries. Such a mismatch is very conducive to war. Well, Europe is kind of like Africa in this regard, except that the tribes are called the French and the Germans and the English and the Spanish and the Italians.
One place in Europe where national boundaries didn’t line up with tribal boundaries was Yugoslavia, an experiment to unite all the Slavic tribes of the Balkans under one leader. This worked fine under a crafty but iron-fisted ruler like Tito, but look what happened after he died. Peace only returned after the Balkans ‘self-segregated’ – at the end of a nasty civil war. No amount of centralized planning can turn the European continent into something that it is not. But a lot of damage can be done along the way.
With massive immigration from a traditional enemy of Christendom, the only end result for Europe I can see are vast unassimilable ghettos developing within Western Europe, ghettos that will still be festering cauldrons of resentment and violence centuries from now. Think Northern Ireland writ large. Who needs that?
A fan of multicultural might object to this reasoning as fascistic, but it is quite the opposite. I am warning against the genuine fascism that is currently on the rise, and what Europe needs to do to head it off at the pass. Through his schmaltzy sentimentality and strategic blindness, the multi-culti EU elitist is the best enabler that the jackbooted thug has.