Vaclav Klaus, writing a couple of weeks back.
We, the undersigned citizens do not wish to look on in passivity, seeing our state institutions and political representatives are wasting time at this crucial hour, failing to fulfil their duty, which is – first and foremost – the defense of the security and interests of their citizens. Massive immigration is a fundamental threat to the stability of Europe as well as individual EU countries. We are confronted with a serious threat to the future of our country.
He was quite right, of course. But a couple of days back:
The European Union’s (EU) own interior ministers today forced through a plan to allocate at least 120,000 migrants across EU member states, regardless as to whether or not the countries own populations, or their governments agreed. The method they used to force through the policy is called “qualified majority voting” (QMV) – as predicted by UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage in his Breitbart London column just four days ago.
Vaclav Klaus’ response yesterday:
Citing it as an example of social sciences operating “in rare harmony with common sense”, Klaus writes that a community’s internal cohesion is “essential to the smooth and productive functioning and the necessary stability of any society.” He specifically refers to the economic concepts of “human and social capital” without which he says “a healthy functioning state is impossible”.
“Befuddled by the ideology of multiculturalism,” Klaus warns “today’s debate on immigration ignores these elementary facts.” Instead, migration’s proponents believe individual European states can “replenish” the workforce without problems. They therefore seek to welcome and accommodate migrants with the promise of a “new, better life”.
Klaus explains what he believes to be the real motivation behind the migration policy by referring to the thoughts of the former Head of his Presidential Office, Jiri Weigl.
He repeats Weigl’s theory that it is “precisely the purpose” of the open-arms policy to destroy cohesion in order to then build a “new Europe” on the ruins of the old “without those who are satisfied with the existing Europe.” As migrants are not bound to any of the present European states, they can more easily be re-educated, manipulated and indoctrinated to identify with a “new multiculturalist Europe.”
I can believe that the purpose is to destroy social cohesion. After all, the Europe-wide (and in fact world wide) smoking bans are already extremely effective destroyers of social cohesion. In fact more or less everything these days is culturally destructive and divisive in one way or other.
But it’s much easier to destroy things than it is to create them. It requires a lot of skill and work to create a work of art, but only a few blows with a hammer to destroy it.
Perhaps the idea is that when Europe has been thoroughly shattered, it will be easy to shape it into a new form. But does anyone have any sense at all that these architects of the New Europe have any idea whatsoever what they’re doing? Does anyone believe that the likes of Juncker and Merkel and Hollande and Cameron and all the rest of them are visionary philosophers and statesmen of any kind whatever?
The only thing they seem to have set their eyes upon is the holy grail of “ever closer union”, which means the steady centralisation of power in what is now a new European Empire run by an unrepresentative, self-selected, new aristocracy which accretes more and more power to itself at every opportunity, but appears incapable of ever making any decisions.
What is the purpose of this union? It seems to have no purpose beyond its own self-actualisation. Ever Closer Union is itself its purpose. Europe must become a unified state, and all other considerations – including the well-being of its citizens – are to be secondary to the achievement of this goal. A European superstate stretching from Dublin to the Dneipr is of itself and in itself the ambition of these new empire builders: a political edifice to match the scale of the Roman Empire or the Third Reich. Something really, really big. Because size matters. Particularly in history books.
But even Roman emperors took care to placate the people of Rome, because they knew that if they turned decisively against them, they’d quickly be overthrown.
Yet our new emperors seem to delight in demolishing the societies on which their political power rests. They are sawing off the branches on which they themselves are sitting. And when they fall, they will take them all with them.
The last words of Shelley’s Ozymandias come to mind:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias,king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
the lone and level sands stretch far away,