“fascists” and “racists.” Ironically, the EU itself has been accused of “racism” on occasion. That was the case with this video promoting the enlargement of the EU with the argument that Europeans East and West should unite to protect themselves against Asian, Muslim and African powers. Certainly, given Europeans’ rapidly collapsing power in the world and the continuing demographic explosion of non-Europeans, this argument is not unconvincing.
The video’s “racism” is not merely the product of bureaucratic incompetence or of the Left’s infamous proclivity for witch hunts. The hint is in the name: the European Union. The EU is perhaps the ultimate example of what Professor Kevin MacDonald calls “implicit whiteness,” even if such racialist implications might horrify Eurocrats and mainstream EU-philes.
This is a paradox: The EU is at once obviously implicitly white, yet explicitly founded on the rejection of European ethnic identity and interests in general. Indeed, the EU is openly committed to censoring and persecuting those who would critically study the history of the Second World War, scientifically examine racial (that is, genetic) differences between human populations, or explicitly defend the interests of indigenous Europeans.
Yet, whatever our overlords might wish, one cannot simply legislate out of existence the visceral, evolutionary-determined preference for one’s kin (not without attacking our very genetic code, at any rate, and perhaps it will come to that). The biologically-ingrained nature of ethnocentrism is no doubt why European elites have often appealed to ethnocentric arguments to sell the EU.
Indeed, implicit whiteness and ethnocentrism are always evident in European public opinion, even if ethnic and racial consciousness is not explicit or verbalized. For example, public opinion in European countries almost always prefers EU migrants to largely Afro-Islamic non-EU migrants. European citizens have also been intensely hostile to Turkey joining the Union. Austrian and French activists (such as Anne Kling) have been particularly successful, effectively indefinitely blocking the prospect despite the ardent wishes of Brussels and Ankara. By a ruse of history, only understandable in terms of deep-rooted, centuries-old ethno-civilizational dynamics, the political borders of the EU today effectively match the old religious one between Christendom and Islam, and between the European and Turko-Semitic worlds.
Implicit whiteness is also evident whenever the EU appeals to common European history and culture in its propaganda (classical music, Enlightenment ideals . . .), a heritage which necessarily excludes Africans and Middle Easterners (as in this video, notwithstanding the Albanians and Turks). Some EU propaganda even has a refreshingly archeofuturist feel, as with this video showcasing the new euro bills’ featuring of the Greek mythological figure Europa.
The EU’s pretension of emancipating the Old Continent from the United States’ tutelage and of fighting international financial speculation has also made Eurocrats vulnerable to accusations of anti-Americanism and, naturally, anti-Semitism. In the 1992 poster above (“Faire l’Europe c’est faire le poids“) the French Socialists sold European integration on power-political, anti-American, and anti-Japanese grounds. To paraphrase: “Us Continental Euros had better band together against those Asiatics and Anglo-Saxons.” One EU-funded comic, perhaps drawing from Hergé’s tradition, has even been accused of anti-Semitism by one Anglo-Zionist politician, deeming it akin to “some caricature from the Völkischer Beobachter.”
Implicit whiteness is also apparent in the EU’s typically “SWPL” intense moralism and egalitarianism. The Union’s officials are on an eternal, aspirational quest to achieve not mere equality of opportunity but equality of outcomes for the various victim groups du jour: women, Roma, migrants, non-European minorities, etc. One video promoting women in the sciences was ironically so patronizing it was deemed “sexist” and pulled. The idea that sexual dimorphism might lead to different ideal social roles for men and women is inconceivable (the EU officially wants at least 40% women in all corporate boards across the continent and has considered making such targets binding, never mind that women continue be relatively uninterested in STEM studies and massively overrepresented in the humanities, education, and healthcare). Everything is to be “nice” and taken care of, a Europe safe for the Eloi.
I have been struck at how similar appear to be the psychological sources for multiculturalism and EU-philia: Sacrifice more, show your good will some more, have faith, and all will fall into place. There is that same moralistic aversion to recognizing, let alone thinking hard about, the ethno-national fact. In this too, the EU appears to be marked by a typically Northwest European moralism.
The European Union, deeply flawed as it is, represents a legitimate expression of European civilization, albeit in a late decadent and partially distorted form. The EU answers to 28 elected national governments who to a certain extent do represent the aspirations and contradictions of their peoples. The Union’s ideology and propaganda, in attempting to provide a positive vision of the future and a justification for its power, tells us something about the state of being of contemporary European elites and peoples. What does it tell us? That European elites – despite their obsession with money-chasing and blindness to ethnic realities – cannot help but appeal, if only implicitly, to European ethnic interests and culture, to the blood and spirit of our people.
But do European elites really believe the EU could survive – with its moralism, its “consensus,” its SWPL niceness – if the indigenous inhabitants of Europe were replaced by Africans and Muslims? Do they really think “the Eloi” will survive long then? European elites’ decadence, I believe, is chiefly due the sickness of our culture. If, as Keynes said, politicians are “the slaves of some defunct economist,” they are today in virtually all areas the unconscious servants of the culture of critique.
Implicit whiteness is always highly comforting for White Advocates as it betrays ethnic Europeans’ displaced ethnocentrism, their will-to-life, even if our ruling elites succeed in diverting or neutralizing it. Indeed, the omnipresent coercion necessary to suppress ethnocentrism, a basic evolved psychological impulse, can only lead to severe neurosis, no doubt contributing to the tragically-misplaced fury of the Dylan Storm Roofs and Anders Behring Breiviks of the world. But this ethnocentrism is there, waiting to be tapped by an enlightened elite and constructively harnessed for the common good.
Notes1. The EU’s legal foundations in effect lock in the values and assumptions of a particular moment in European history – the postwar years of continental trauma, of joint Soviet-American occupation, and of the steady rise to hegemony of the culture of critique (transmitted through the tremendous reach of (Jewish-)American culture and through local figures such as Jürgen Habermas in Germany, Bernard-Henri Lévy in France, and Simon Schama in Great Britain).
EU founding documents and legislation make no reference to the interests, rights, and culture of indigenous Europeans as such. Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states:
Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.Given that most human traits, mental or otherwise, are estimated to be about 50% heritable, the commitment to non-discrimination on grounds of “genetic features” seems problematic to say the least.
In 2008, EU governments explicitly committed themselves to criminalizing “hate speech” or “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes,” including the claims of the 1945 Nuremberg Military Tribunal. The EU’s notional commitment to freedom of speech is subordinate to preventing indigenous Europeans from explicitly defending their interests or from questioning the assumptions of 1945: In both cases, Europe’s self-styled liberal democracies are not only allowed, but expected, to suppress such thoughts and speech through censorship and legal persecution.
2. Unfortunately, too often the EU’s aesthetic starkly embodies the cultural poverty of so-called “multicultural” regimes (the same is true of the literal travesty that is the Eurovision song contest). Every ethno-national group’s authentic, vibrant culture and symbols must be suppressed in order to accommodate the sensitivities of every other group. Instead, only an insipid, deracinated, and corporate/bureaucratic monoculture remains over all ethnic groups, fitting none.
This is evident in the Euro currency itself: The 100 franc bill’s Eugène Delacroix, the 1,000 Mark bill’s brothers Grimm, and countless other symbols of Europe’s cultural and historic achievements were simply deleted, replaced by a common set of bills showcasing only . . . imaginary bridges and buildings. If Europe’s common currency is to survive, let us hope that more enlightened leaders will seek to inspire our people every day with the faces of our European heroes: Homer and Plato, Charles Martel and Saint Louis, Godfrey de Bouillon and El Cid, Magellan and Galileo, Vlad Țepeș and Jan Sobiesky, Darwin and Nietzsche, to name only a few.
3. Incidentally, Latin American, African, and Arab countries have been attempting to form EU-style unions for decades, with meager results.