Counter-Currents
1,283 words
History has proved that large, complex, multicultural societies can in fact exist. There are countless examples of them. In fact, any state or society that achieves a large size will almost inevitably be multicultural in some way.
Historically, most large, complex, multicultural societies tended to be empires, controlled by brutal but pragmatic elites — as raw power always has its limitations. Many of them were of course monarchies, but some of them have even existed towards the more democratic end of the political spectrum. But, wherever they stood constitutionally, all of them have had major elements of instability to overcome in order to subsist and flourish.
The most important factor in any large, multicultural entity is its ruling elite, and how brutal and/or pragmatic it is. In earlier ages the element of brutality was more important (the Mongol Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Czarist Russia, etc.), but the element of pragmatism was never absent. In many cases the element of pragmatism was more important (the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the British Empire, the United States, etc.) but the element of brutality was never unimportant.
It is clear that the European Union is also a large, complex, multicultural entity, even if it is not yet fully formed. It therefore has the same problems and dilemmas as any other large, complex, multicultural society, namely how to get diverse populations to co-exist harmoniously, or at least prevent them from pulling the society apart. Historically, many techniques have been employed — the creation of ethnic “safe spaces,” co-opting leadership cadres, favouring supranational elites (Jews, the Church, etc.) . . .
Because the EU was formed in a relatively unorthodox way — i.e., through voluntary entry — it is extremely limited in the degree of brutality that it can use to maintain its unity and power. It therefore has to rely much more on the pragmatic characteristics of its ruling elite — namely their guile and ability to perceive and carefully manipulate the balance of forces. The success of the European Union in the past was due to this factor. In effect, it was able to offer enough but not too much integration, while slowly, carefully, and cautiously preparing the groundwork for greater integration. This is testified to by its history, which, in the first 30 years of its history, shows a pattern of slow, gradual change, largely backed up by obvious.
The recent decision by 52% of British voters to leave marks the first serious setback this large, complex, multicultural entity has suffered. In this sense the Brexit vote can almost be compared to the Battle of Britain in 1940, which also ended an unbroken series of successes for another large, multicultural European entity that was attempting to expand. This defeat suffered by the EU in the Brexit vote therefore strongly suggests that something has gone seriously wrong with the EU’s formally winning formula.
Historically, the problem seems to stem from two closely related events, the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the 1992 monetary crisis known as Black Wednesday, caused by a flawed attempt to link the disparate British and German economies through currency pegging. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communist Europe led to the reunification of Germany, which was already the dominant economic power in the EU, while also creating a power vacuum to the East and South East of the EU.
This strongly shifted the balance of power in the EU towards Germany, a development that was reinforced by the fallout of Black Wednesday, when speculative financiers like George Soros made fortunes by using the recent modernization of the City of London (the much-touted “Big Bang”) to “short” the UK economy.
With Germany increasingly dominant in the EU, the union started to take on the characteristics and serve the interests of the German ruling elites. This effectively drove a wedge between the EU’s past of careful, pragmatic growth, which had mainly Francophone or Latin characteristics, and its subsequent more dramatic expansion, which reflected a more Germanic dynamic.
Almost immediately, we saw typically Teutonic attempts at Gleichschaltung (coordination) expressed in the 1993 Maastricht treaty and a series of subsequent treaties, all designed to transform the EU into a much more standardized and centralized entity, something that few of the member countries or their populations were ready for, least of all Britain.
These efforts also combined with rapid over-expansion to the East and the creation of a currency that was effectively designed to serve German business interests by permanently keeping the currency used by Germany devalued to favour exports.
At a time when Europe should have been growing more carefully and more organically, while maintaining harmony through subtle pragmatism, it was instead becoming a turbocharged asymmetric entity, centred mainly on the economic interests of the German elites, with some deference to the French political class, and an occasional bone thrown to London, bolstered by the initial eagerness of Eastern Europe to shake off its communist shackles.
This was a moment in history, but it was clearly a moment that could not last, and Britain, in the wake of Black Wednesday developed a hard core of Eurosceptics, whose voice in the Conservative party and UKIP could not be stifled and who were determined to undermine “The Empire,” finally achieving their goal a few days ago.
Britain’s recent defection is far from being an isolated case. Instead it is a harbinger of other crises to come.
Since the EU deviated from its initially winning formula, and instead embarked on its present course of increased centralization imposed with a Teutonic lack of tone, exacerbated by technocratic facelessness, numerous other fissures have opened up:
- Greece’s debt problems continue to bubble away, as do those of many other countries
- Youth unemployment remains extremely high due to employment over-regulation, leading to growing social chaos
- Culture clashes between the Westernized and less-Westernized countries over issues like homosexualism
- Problems caused by the migrant crisis, where again we see the greater conservatism of Eastern European states
The pressing challenge for the EU is to prevent total collapse. This is something that will require a complete overhaul in attitude and approach, and a return — in as much as it is possible — to something approximating to the formula that allowed it to grow in the first place. This will greatly depend on the degree to which Germany, in particular, can be persuaded to take several steps back from its destructive economic role.
Alas, the omens are not promising, as this would involve major reforms if not the actual scrapping of the Euro currency, a device that works to over-centralize the diverse elements of this complex European society through economic inequality. Unfortunately, this is a kind of fetish object or magic amulet for the German elites, serving to guard their power and ensure their continued virility as their country changes around them.
It is far more likely that Germany and France will seek to preserve the Euro currency and continue on their centralizing path, generating further tensions with member states in Southern and Eastern Europe, many of whom will look to Britain’s example.
How the EU deals with the UK throws up interesting questions. Will it attempt to make an example of it in order to temporarily cow other rebels and paper over the cracks, or will it look for a clean break in order to lighten its load for a necessary period of reform and renewal?
There now seem to be two Europes — a centrifugal Europe, led by Britain and its Eurosceptic movement, with allies in dissident parts of Eastern Europe, and centripetal Europe, led by Franco-German bureaucrats and business interests, keen to treat the rest of Europe as their colonial backyard. It is fascinating the degree to which patterns of history find ways to repeat themselves!
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
12 comments
Brexit, ahhh… I went to bed feeling miserable but ate my breakfast feeling elated, and Camoron’s resignation added further gratification. One of the two primary nationalist objectives has been achieved (the other of course being “stop immigration, start repatriation”) and the man who made it happen, Nigel Farage, is a national hero. He pitched himself & UKIP midway between the Tories and the BNP which made him unpopular with nationalists (“he’s a safety valve”) but his strategy has worked and he has surpassed Mosley, Powell, Tyndall and Griffin in terms of accomplishment.
I am optimistic that Marine Le Pen (who is comparable to Nigel Farage) will become the next president of France and that there will be a Frexit which together with our Brexit will lead to the collapse of the EU. I have no idea what the Germans will do. I hope that the Afro-Islamic football team that wears the French strip will be eliminated from the European Championship because this will give a little boost of rebelliousness to their disgruntled citizens whereas a victory could to some extent “unite” the country and encourage maintenance of the status quo.
Waite Iceland will pull a fast one as well on the rooster, don’t you worry. Go Ragnar! Go!
Another anti-German article by Liddell, replete with cartoonish Nazi invocations?
Liddell would be well advised to never write about anything concerning Germany again.
I’m not in the least anti-German, but I sometimes worry that their characteristics and tendencies can lead in dangerous directions, especially as they have so much talent and intensity. Although in this case, wrecking the EU might be considered a good thing, depending on how you view it.
The thing is that, as others already said, you got the EU story wrong.
“With Germany increasingly dominant in the EU, the union started to take on the characteristics and serve the interests of the German ruling elites.”
“Almost immediately, we saw typically Teutonic attempts at Gleichschaltung (coordination)”
Nearly stopped reading right there. Nobody doubts that German elites heavily colluded, but it should be common knowledge that the EU project was American from the start; even mainstream media are open about it, as are functionaries like Verheugen. E.g.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/
Everytime a Brit, Greek or Pole plays the Song of the Evil German I cannot help but hear soft hand rubbing in the background. Don’t fall for that obvious D&C BS.
Your desire to see Germany as a perpetual victim at the hands of the evil (((Americans))) means that you completely ignore the part France played and French interests in the earlier period of the EU.
The link to the Telegraph story is amusing, as quite a few people and nations had their interests served by greater unity in the face of an aggressive and expansionary Soviet Union. Whatever America was doing in post-war Europe did not happen in a vacuum, but in conjunction with various Europeans and their interests.
As for my wider point, there is an obvious change in the tempo of the EU, following the reunification of Germany. This, combined with Eastward over-expansion, the creation of a single currency that best served German business interests and the establishment of the ECB in Frankfurt, means that it is both valid and useful to characterize the two periods of the history of the EU in the way I did in my article.
Helmut Kohl panicked after German reunification. His and his successors’ actions, designed to reassure Germany’s neighbors by submerging German power into a supranational organization, betrayed their own lack of self trust.
It begs the question – if you don’t trust yourself, why bother with German reunification anyway? Why not just keep the two German states separate?
What Kohl et al. effectively did was force the East Germans from the Soviet bloc into a Cultural Marxist empire. And claim that they were being ‘liberated’.
You forgot to mention that the Germans bombed our chip shop. Now that we have “got our country back” the EU will collapse and our economy will go from strength to strength. Good old Boris will deport all the immigrants and we will enter a new Golden Age. Dream on.
The article misrepresents some of the essential facts about the EU. First, it was founded to continue the occupation and exploitation of Germany. There was no voluntary entry for us Germans and we are not ever allowed to voice our opinion about the EU.
At the time, nobody had anything against the blessings of the German economy. The same is true of the insane amount of money the other EU countries blackmailed from Germany from 1945 onwards. The Euro is by no means an invention of Germany but was designed to continue the bloodsucking forever – and it was forced upon us at gunpoint as “a question of war and peace” as Mitterand said. Next, there is no German government in the authentic sense of the world. Germany is still occupied by the Western allies including Great Britain, which are in turn controlled by ((( you know whom ))).
As far as I am aware – but correct me if you know better, Mr. Liddell – the centralisation takes place in Brussels, which is not in Germany and has nothing to do with German power centers, so stop pretending that Germany is accumulating power. German, although the most frequent mother tongue in the EU, is not even an official language there.
not the same guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Walsh_(author)
(although the other one is a bit too kind towards women [as if women can save the world])
I think this got put on the wrong thread. How did that happen?
I agree, Liddel got the EURO story wrong. It was essentially the French attempt to stop the expansion of an emerging “D-Mark Block”, as Austria, the Low Countries and Denmark had essentially coupled their own currencies to the D-Mark, and it was foreseeable that states like Poland and Hungary would do the same. Thus Mitterand’s insistance on the EURO , that would give France a say in the currency matters, as a pre-condition for his “oui” to German reunification. So, most German readers of this, or similar, website(s) would have the view that “they have taken our good, hard D-Mark and replaced it with a Mediterranean shit currency”.
That one of the EU’s functions is to limit German souvereignty has been, directly or indirectly, admitted by politicians unsuspected of furthering conspiracy theories, like Günther Verheugen, Gerhard Schröder, or Egon Bahr.
It is however also very true that our political class apparently has not done, and will not do, anything at all to preserve what remnants there are of German “souvereignty”. IMHO for the simple reason that they are on the payroll of people who want to see it taken away completely. Thus, they simply throw away our country in order to further their individual careers and benefits.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment