Europe’s Miserable Condition: On The Paris Statement

A guest post from The Notorious J.A.C. (a.k.a., Jacques). 

Scruton and others recently issued the so-called “Paris Statement” (PS) on Europe’s miserable condition.  In some respects, PS seems important and right.  Here I want to register some complaints:

PS, 1:   “Europe belongs to us, and we belong to Europe. These lands are our home; we have no other. The reasons we hold Europe dear exceed our ability to explain or justify our loyalty. It is a matter of shared histories, hopes and loves…  Ordinary landscapes and events are charged with special meaning—for us, but not for others.”

Comment:  Who are “we” and who are the “others” supposed to be here?  The obvious answer would be:  (1) We are the Europeans, the ones with “shared histories” over many centuries and generations in Europe, the ones whose European ancestors created and sustained and passed down the various European nations and cultures and folkways.  In other words, we are the ethnic or native Europeans—the (ethnic or native) Dutch, the Irish, the English, the Germans, etc.  And so, (2) the Others are those who are not ethnic or native Europeans, even if they live in Europe, who have other ancestors and shared histories, whose real home is somewhere else.  For instance, giant and ever-increasing MENA populations made up mostly of people whose ancestors lived somewhere else until just a few years ago.

However, as we’ll see, the authors of PS don’t seem to accept this answer; they seem implicitly to reject it.  And they don’t seem to have any clear alternative answer.  But then it’s very hard to understand what they are defending, or how they can coherently defend it.  The problem is that they won’t seriously address race.

PS, 4:  “The greatest threat to the future of Europe is neither Russian adventurism nor Muslim immigration…  Our nations and shared culture are being hollowed out by illusions and self-deceptions about what Europe is and should be.”

Comment:  Sure, there is no such thing as “Russian adventurism” and, arguably, Muslim immigration is not the greatest threat to the future of Europe.  But the mass immigration of Muslims and all the other millions of people who are not really native or ethnic Europeans, together with their high birthrates, foreign ways and—often enough—hostility to Europe and Europeans is most certainly a very great threat to Europe.  If your home is infested with poisonous snakes but, in addition, you’re also about to default on your mortgage, then maybe the snakes are not the greatest threat to your home; on the other hand, if someone is telling you to just figure out how to make your mortgage payments while doing nothing much about the poisonous snakes, that person is giving you very bad advice.  And, as we’ll see, this is pretty much the approach that the authors of PS appear to be recommending.  Even with no future immigration from anywhere, there are already enough hostile unassimilable Muslims in western Europe to destroy every western European homeland.  This just will happen, obviously, even without terrorism or civil wars; it’s a matter of inevitable culture change once demographics have radically shifted.  And by comparison, “illusions and self-deceptions” of Europeans are certainly no more threatening to the existence of the real European peoples and nations than these demographic facts on the ground.  So statements like this are evasive and cowardly, at best.  Muslims (and others) just are a lethal threat.

PS, 17:  “The false Europe also boasts of an unprecedented commitment to equality. It claims to promote non-discrimination and the inclusion of all races, religions and identities.  Here, genuine progress has been made, but a utopian detachment from reality has taken hold.”

Comment:  The authors apparently have no objection to the (utterly bizarre) idea that “the inclusion of all races, religions and identities” is a proper norm for society.  They think that, in this respect, “genuine progress has been made”.  What are they talking about?  I can only assume that they have in mind the inclusion of all kinds of people in European nations and European life.  It’s “progress” of some kind that, now, Holland and France and England are full of Somalis and Pakistanis and Nigerians, not just native ethnic Europeans.  It’s “progress” that, instead of Christians or post-Christians, these nations are now full of Muslims and Buddhists and Jews and Hindus.  And it’s “progress” that all of these non-European groups participate fully in the life and culture of Europe, or more fully than before…

Well, I can understand how a leftist multiculturalist would think so.  But if your goal is to preserve Europe as a home for the people whose ancestors created these societies, how is that going to be possible when you are replacing your population with some random incoherent mass of peoples whose homelands are elsewhere?  If someone told you he’d preserve your family home by inviting a bunch of Gypsies and hobos to hang out in your living room and sleep in your children’s beds, would you think that was a reasonable proposal?  If he told you he’d preserve your Anglican church by replacing half the parishioners with a bunch of Muslims and African animists, would you think that was a reasonable proposal?

Actually, in order to preserve any particular culture or way of life or nation you must exclude lots of people—all those whose “identities”, ways or beliefs or biology are incompatible with yours.  “Inclusion” is not good unless your goal is to dissolve “identities”.  A Christian Church can’t “include” more than a very small number of non-Christians without just not being a Christian Church anymore.  And Ireland just isn’t Ireland, obviously, if it comes to “include” huge numbers of people who aren’t really Irish.  The immigrant Others already have their own cultures, and “including” them and their alien cultures just means demolishing the native cultures of Europe.

But the authors of PS have a solution:  assimilation.

PS, 27:  “Immigration without assimilation is colonization, and this must be rejected. We rightly expect that those who migrate to our lands will incorporate themselves into our nations and adopt our ways. This expectation needs to be supported by sound policy.”

Comment:  This is just clearly not going to work, even if there is not one more immigrant in the future.  You cannot reasonably expect thousands or even millions of people who share a religion and ancestral culture, living together, to assimilate en masse to the culture of some foreign group of people—especially when, in reality, their relation to that foreign group is one of deeply rooted historical and religious resentment, fear and hatred.

Do the authors of PS really think that the vast Muslim population of France, for example, is ever going to fully “assimilate” to the ancestral ways and culture of France?  Even though they happen to like the identity and culture and community that they already have?  The very idea of assimilation on this scale is flatly absurd—unless we imagine a future European society that uses brutal totalitarian methods to force “assimilation”.  (And this probably wouldn’t work anyway!  After all, the culture of Europeans is probably to some degree rooted in their biological nature; there is no reason to expect that it can be adopted or sustained by people with entirely different evolutionary histories.)

In fact, conservatives like the authors of PS are being just as utopian as the leftists they criticize.  The very idea of “assimilation” under these conditions is sheer fantasy, totally divorced from any sober understanding of human nature that is supposed to be the basis for conservative thinking.

Question for the authors of PS:  Imagine that European societies did “expect” or even “demand” assimilation from immigrants, but lots of them just won’t do it.  What then?  What would you propose that the natives do about it?  I think we know the answer:  Nothing.  No one is going to do anything about it, and no one is even going to propose anything.  In reality, the mass of immigrants will never fully identify with Europe or its people; they will always know that their real home is elsewhere; they will never belong and they will never really want to belong.  But Europeans—the real Europeans—are supposed to sit back and just “expect” this laughably unrealistic outcome, hope against hope that the largest influx of aliens in human history will do this thing that is probably not even possible for them.  (Could Europeans ever really fully “assimilate” to the culture of China or Nigeria?  Would it be realistic to think they could all become “Chinese” or “Nigerian” if there were just enough good will and hard work over the generations?  Give me a break.)  The only real solution is that they have to go back.  The vast majority of non-white immigrants have to go back, and their children too.  If conservatives can’t stomach the idea, fair enough; then stop complaining and just accept that Europe in the future can’t be your home, or a home for your descendants.  It’s really that simple.

The authors of PS and other erudite, genteel conservatives need to start talking seriously and explicitly about the reality and importance of race—not just dancing around the problem with high-sounding talk about “western civilization” and “the classical heritage”.  Yes, all of that is important and it really does belong to Europeans; it is their birthright, their inheritance, and no one else’s.  But until they can say who we are, and why we have a right to our ancestors’ lands and achievements and physical territories, they aren’t yet serious.  In fact, much of PS really just facilitates our dispossession (or would, if people cared what rightists have to say about the topic).

Personally, I do not want Holland to be populated wholly or even predominantly by blacks and Arabs and Asians—regardless of what cultural traits they might have.  The idea is disgusting and depressing to me.  It would be death of Holland, the death of the real Dutch people, the death of the real Dutch culture.  Even with “assimilation” to the local language and culture—were that really possible—this would still just be a form of “colonization”.  If Europeans coming to the New World had somehow “assimilated” to the culture of the natives, adopting Iroquois language or rituals, they would still have been colonizing someone else’s land:  their descendants would be replacing the peoples who would otherwise have had the whole continent to themselves, for their descendants.

I don’t want that for Europeans, my people, or for anyone else.  But right now, we are the only ones facing replacement and dispossession.  So it’s natural that we just don’t want that for our descendants.  I suspect lots of white people feel the same way, even if they won’t admit it.  Why not admit it?  Why must conservatives lie about their deepest motivations?  Maybe if we could be more honest about what we value, which is not just “culture” or “the classical heritage”, we could begin to take our own side—we might even have a realistic hope of restoring and developing European culture.  But with its implicit race-blind liberalism or anti-racism, PS is worse than useless.  In fact PS is a very PC document in the end, despite its good points.  And it’s getting awfully late in the day for this kind of evasion.

AR-15

A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts

4 Comments

  1. Always interesting to hear from the Notorious J.A.C. Though I agree that the Paris Statement is high falutin and lacks any suggestion of concrete proposals to remedy the “false Europe,” I don’t see the Alt-Right offering feasible policies either, preferring to relish in and find purpose in the rhetoric of white tribalism without attempting to solve the problem its members are so keen to identify.

    You write of “totalitarian methods,” and say the “vast majority of non-whites immigrants have to go back.” Millions would have to be forcibly deported; a vast police state apparatus will be empowered to carry it out; there probably will be open rebellion and blood shed across the continent all for the sake of white homogeneity based on the dubious contention that whiteness — whatever that means — is coextensive European. Even if we grant that claim, do the ends justify the shabby means? Do such “brutal” means, which echo the forced relocation of millions of ethnic Germans at the end of World War II, give you any pause? To me, this seems just as utopian as a “Thousand Year Reich” or a “Workers’ Paradise.”

    • I don’t think Jacques was criticizing the PS people for not offering “feasible” policies. I take it that his criticism is that we’re not going to get anywhere if we can’t even name and identify the problem and what it would take to actually solve the problem. That’s a necessary component of solving the problem. Yes, it’s far from sufficient. People, at least enough people with the right resources, would need an iron will to carry it out. (Although, it’s also important to realize that probably a lot of it could be done through various incentive and disincentive structures that weren’t as coercive as forced physical deportation.) What is the alternative? I think Jacques is making the case that there is no realistic alternative except that the traditional cultures of Europe are destroyed and the white race is more or less eradicated in its traditional homelands.

  2. Schopenhammer,
    I agree that a lot could be done with incentives and disincentives. Just for a start:
    -End all programs needed only by immigrants (e.g., language and cultural training)
    -No welfare unless you were born here or worked here for at least 5 years
    -End pro-alien affirmative action; start pro-native affirmative action
    -End all pro-alien messaging, curricula, policies
    -Deport any ‘refugees’ or other non-citizens the first time they commit any crimes
    -Non-citizens stay only if a group of citizens will vouch for them; the group is responsible for their behavior
    -Criminalize the promotion of sharia, jihad or any other anti-European ideology
    -Much higher taxes on corporations promoting ‘diversity’ and immigration
    -One-time buyout for those willing to leave: what the state spends on an average alien over 5 years, say

  3. Jan,
    Thanks for commenting. A few thoughts: (1) There will be “bloodshed across the continent” or else hard totalitarianism if the aliens _don’t_ go back; so I worries about these things can’t justify anything like the status quo. (2) What is “white tribalism”? I am saying that there are _real_ Europeans; these are white people, and they have a right to survive and dominate in their ancestral lands. This is “white tribalism”? If so, I don’t understand what’s bad about “white tribalism”. (3) It’s not “dubious” that real Europeans are white people. Are you suggesting it’s not entirely clear whether Zulu can be/become a real German? (Do you also doubt whether a Zulu could be real Sioux?) What could make this doubtful? (3) I’m not imagining a utopia. I’m merely hoping for the _survival_ of the European peoples and their cultures. There would still be all kinds of problems, some perennial and unsolvable; but they would exist, and not be slaves or kulaks in their own countries.

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. The Nettle, Ungrasped – waka waka waka

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)