The Euro Delusion–Goodbye to the Third Stupid, Utopian Idea of the Last Century

Ed West, Telegraph (London), September 28, 2011

Little Englanders, xenophobes, eccentric constitutionalists, men of intellectual violence, extremists, Europhobes, even Mosleyites–Eurosceptics have been called everything.

So if long-standing opponents of the EU are starting to sound a little tedious in their denunciations of “the Guilty Men” who tried to push Britain into the euro, forgive us. But when the entire political class of our continent has got such an important issue so utterly wrong it’s not something that should be brushed aside.

And when the establishment has been so exposed, it is rational that we start to question its other orthodoxies. James Delingpole and Guido Fawkes, among others, see parallels with the political consensus over climate change, and indeed Peter Oborne’s description of the appeasement era, “when dissent was greeted with suffocating ostracism and personal calumny, reminiscent of the fate of religious non-conformists in earlier times” could be applied to many areas where the British elite become ferocious towards bad-thinkers. This Independent editorial from 1992 will be studied in history books for years to come, as an example of politically motivated hate. (And, I hope, in psychiatrists’ manuals.) Yet the European project–the euro delusion–is part of a wider utopian mania that grips the political class.

At the Labour Party conference two days ago, Ed Miliband said that Labour had got it wrong over immigration, and “underestimated the level of immigration” from Poland. Only by a factor of 100 to 1–so don’t worry about it. However, as my colleague Philip Johnston points out, this is to give a totally misleading account of Labour’s immigration policy, of which the A8 migration was just one part.

And it was not just that Labour “got it wrong” in a technical sense. They were systematically, fundamentally wrong in their entire philosophy, a level of wrong-ness that only comes about when intelligent people suffer from collective madness. Their approach to immigration, as many party workers have since confessed, came about from a flawed belief that ethnic, religious and cultural diversity was itself a good and liberal thing, a millennial belief in a universalism that could be called the diversity delusion.

The diversity delusion and the euro delusion are both symptoms of a similar pseudo-religious mania. Both sprung from a noble attempt to ensure that the horrors of 1914-1945, inspired by nationalism and scientific racism, were never repeated. Both make them more likely to be repeated. Jean Monnet, architect and first president of the European Coal and Steel Community, conceived the idea of a United States of Europe in order to ensure such wars never happened again, through a new empire in which nationalism had been erased. Because Monnet was opposed by Charles de Gaulle, who favoured a Europe of nations, he therefore he developed the “Monnet method” of “integration by stealth”, a policy that ultimately led to the tragedy of economic union.

Perhaps more influential still was Alexandre Kojeve, who set up the embryonic European Union and influenced a generation of pro-EU thinkers in France. He came up with the “end of history” theme, whereby national boundaries and exclusive communities would wash away and a new world without borders would emerge. The EU’s vapid motto, United in diversity, reflects this neo-Christian utopianism.

Without exception the guilty men of Europe also shared, and still, share, the diversity delusion. The Liberal Democrats have entirely signed up, and most of the Labour Party too, although the Tories must share the blame too. Only one senior Tory spoke up against both mass immigration and the Common Market, Enoch Powell (who was also a voice in the wilderness in opposing Keynesian policies–only Paul the Octopus in recent years has been more right). Powell’s provocative language certainly helped his opponents, but as immigration is by its very nature a more toxic subject, so milder opponents have been silenced, leaving only the cranks, oddballs and extremists to represent opposition to this new utopia. This in turn makes it easier to present critics as extremists, just as even a couple of years ago opponents of the euro were labeled extremists and xenophobes. Contrary to what proponents of this delusion claim, it is not about xenophobia or racism; the issue, as Charles Moore wrote on Saturday, is one of sovereignty, and sovereignty relies on the legitimacy that only nations can provide.

Instead, as Roger Scruton noted, European intellectuals tried to “discard national loyalty and to replace it with the cosmopolitan ideals of the Enlightenment… The problem… is that cosmopolitan ideals are the property of an elite and will never be shared by the mass of human kind.”

The European project was a utopian idea, and I suspect that Britain’s peripheral part in the third great stupid, European idea of the last century will soon be over. National loyalty, whatever the elites feel, is here to stay. I guess we’re all extremists now.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Daniel

    And after Europe out with the ‘human’ rights of murdering rapist genocidalists who have established (after a week of living in Britain or Ireland as illegal aliens) ‘family life’ rights in Britain and Ireland…unlike an Irish person (but not an illegal invader to Ireland) who has spent two or more years living abroad as an economic migrant and not ‘immigrant’!

  • Freyr

    The breezy optimism here is sickening. It was all just a mistake, unpleasant to be sure, but all’s well that ends well. As if millions of aliens aren’t in Britain to stay, lustily breeding on the public largesse. What do you call Neo Cons in Britain? Tories? Whigs?

  • Bill R

    I notice that the only ethnic group mentioned in the article we have here is that of the Polish. Ya know, if it was ONLY Poles they had immigrating, they’d not have any problems at all. The Polish community in America are great assets. Good citizens.

    No, it’s all the “others” that they allowed to flood in. The Pakis, Blacks, Muslims, and third worlders. But they won’t mention THAT mistake by name, will they? Poles will merely get angry. Calling the blacks, Pakis, and muslims by name as the problem could get the writer killed. And they don’t see that little reality as reason enough to send them all packing? By force, if necessary?

  • thorismund

    I wonder if anyone has thought of the effect of mass immigration on the tourism industry in Europe. I’ve heard that 50% of births in Paris are from people of African descent. It seems that France will be less likely to be a tourist destination as in the past.

  • Buridan

    What AmRen has to do with the European Union ? AmRen is supposed to be about race, so about immigration, too ? But the link between European Union and immigration is very thin. Denmark is in the EU, and tough on immigration, whereas Norway is not in the EU, and is open to immigration. Political parties in EU which are opposed to immigration are not pecularly against the EU, see in Belgium the Vlaams Belang, in Italy Lega Nord, in Denmark Danske Volkeparti, in Sweden the Sweden Democrats, in Finland the True Finns, in Austria FPO and BZO. The Front National in France and the UKIP in the UK are the exceptions. Anyway, there is no logical link between opposition to EU and opposition to (non-European) immigration.

  • rockman

    there are two options here in reality for all of europe. One being the slow breeding out of the white population resulting in a mongrel race of lowered inteligence and no culture or door number two with the white population getting a backbone and sending the immigrants beck home with a pat on the head and saying dont come again. Sending them home will take a new nationalism movement with a street army to back it up. Hard times are ahead for Europe

  • Whiteman

    I hate to say this, for it’s out of character for me (tho not really out of character for AmRen) but the writer of this article too has it wrong. A United States of Europe could potentially be a good thing, just as the opposing words ‘unity in diversity’ could also somehow be a good thing. But only there are a united group of whites.

    The irony is if such a wonderful thing does one day come to pass it wont include England because England is no longer white.

  • Kenelm Digby

    The late, great Enoch Powell was involved in two main political struggles during his career.These were:

    1/. Curtailment of mass immigration.

    2/. Scepticism towards European federalism and the ‘European Union’.

    Powell suffered and struggled long and hard for his beliefs.A Conservative MP he urged the electorate to vote Labour in the General Election of 1974, because he couldn’t stomach Tory pro-EU policies.

    History has vindicated Enoch Powell and his brave and lonely principles.

    The catastrophe of mass immigration into Britain was exposed in the terrible riots of August.The incipient collapse of the Euro currency (and the terrible price the German people have been conned into paying)and perhaps the collapse of the EU iself further vindicated Powell.

  • Retired Cop

    Divide and Conquer

    The reason liberals want diversity and multiculturalism is to divide and conquer the populace. A country where people fight among themselves is much is easy to dictate than a one culture united front.

  • Sardonicus

    “came about from a flawed belief that ethnic, religious and cultural diversity was itself a good and liberal thing, a millennial belief in a universalism that could be called the diversity delusion.”

    Not only was the “diversity delusion” wrong it was criminal and destructive as well. It has altered the traditional cultures and economies of Europe by importing a huge permanent criminal underclass. The harm that this widely believed delusion has inflicted will continue for decades, if not centuries.

  • Luke

    I want to see the Genocide trials begin.

    Followed by swift convictions, using the voting records, public statements and written words of every last one of these anti-white, Cultural Marxist poisoned nation destroyers as evidence to obtain those convictions.

    And, then the fun starts. Sentence every one of those found guilty of having participated in a treasonous, criminal conspiracy to genocide the native White peoples of their respective nations to death by public hanging.

    Let the trap door handles be well oiled and the ropes made from sturdy fiber.

  • John Engelman

    9 — Retired Cop wrote at 8:06 AM on September 29:

    Divide and Conquer

    The reason liberals want diversity and multiculturalism is to divide and conquer the populace. A country where people fight among themselves is much is easy to dictate than a one culture united front.

    ——-

    Those on the left who think that they benefit politically from diversity and multiculturalism should ask themselves why the political center in the United States is to the right of where it is in Europe, where the clear majority of the population is still white. They should also consider what happened to the Democratic Party after the civil rights legislation was signed.

    Social Democracy has only worked in countries where nearly everyone is white. The New Deal would not have been possible if civil rights legislation had been part of the agenda.

  • Anonymous

    I agree withh Buridan. There is not an inherent requirement to allow mass immigration from Africa or Asia simply because one wants a European continent free of nationalistic insanity. As an American I cannot understand the depth of emotion engendered by the memories of WW1 and 2, and the Cold War, but I can understand the anxieties generated by unchecked immmigration, which seems to me to be invasion and conquest without pride, sense of boundary, or history.

  • Anonymous

    #5 EU means open borders to other EU members, this means a steady flow of illegals from mediterranian countries into north Europe (including UK) and then there is the ever present gypsy presence that now moves freely from EU member to EU member depending on the available pickings. There are hundreds of bums from Romania on the streets of Stockholm and there has to be several thousands in London.

    #7 Pan-European integration has been tried many times in the past – the Holy Roman Empire, the Austria-Hungary Empire, The Russian Czar Empire etc etc. They all failed because Europe is multicultural. Multicultural as in neighbouring people that doesnt even share the same language even if they are part of the same empire. The only thing that could possibly work is a lose confederation based on voluntary partial or whole participation with an easy exit path. The current EU isnt this and it will eventually blast apart because EU is too diverse economically, culturally and politically.

    USA is much more homogenous than Europe despite its huge differences. You think having to speak spanish in California is a big thing, if I go from here to f.ex Spain by land I would have to speak 3 different languages if I wanted to speak to the locals in the nations I pass trough, and then I would have to speak spanish when I arrived. Most people in Europe therefore know a second language, in western Europe english, in eastern Europe german or russian. How many americans know some other language than american english? Another thing that differs between USA and Europe is that USA is an idea nation based on the common dream of material prosperity and the idea of being Gods Chosen Nation with a Manifest Destiny, Euro nations are blood and soil nations where the same kind of people have lived for thousands of years. Americans that move here are irritated that they are considered outsiders even if they have lived here for 20 years and even more irritated that their locally born kids are considered foreigners.

  • Jason Robertson

    The concept of European union in one form or another has a long history. As a means to stop intra-continental warfare and to make rational use of shared geographical resources of rivers, food and raw materials, and to develop a large internal market for the products of modern technology, there was a good case for either a Europe of Nations (De Gaulle) or Europe a Nation (Oswald Mosley), linked to overseas allies like Quebec-Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand. Whatever the origins of the present EEC and EU, it is definitely a “politically correct” tyranny favourable to a degenerate culture and alien immigration, even with its own special arrangements for monitoring and penalising “racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism”, &c.

    Whatever the economic fate of Europe, including the British Isles within its regional ambit, the need for co-operation and solidarity among its so-called “white nationalists” has become a paramount necessity, and may eventually lead to an altogether different and more durable union, friendly to Americans and Russians, and much more acceptable to its English, Scots, Welsh and Irish members. The present Brussels bureaucracy is as much an enemy of the ordinary Saxon, Norman or Roman as it is of their British relatives.

  • Question Diversity

    15 Jason Robertson:

    I have personally advocated for a treaty organization of explicitly white countries. It would supplant NATO, UN, ANZUS, NORAD, etc. — The only kind of transnational involvement white countries should have is with other white countries. And the purpose of such a treaty org (OWN – Organization of White Nations, as a working title) would be the mutual protection and defense of white people, at first against blatantly existential threats like Islam and China. For starters, a missile defense system could be an OWN project, involving the Americans AND the Russians, not one in spite of the other.

    Should the “I” country be part of OWN? As of this moment, I would say yes, but I am willing to hear arguments why it shouldn’t.

  • Anonymous

    16. No, the “I” nation cannot be called a white nation by any measurement. If you let them in, why not the turks as well? Or the algerians? Or the libyans? They also have some white ancestry. Or USA? They have a large white minority (which becomes a majority with some creative accounting). In fact, unless your proposed union is limited to northen Europe (minus the British isles and Ireland) it would not work. I count France as south European. It would be too large, too diverse and too dysfunctional.