The Journal of History     Winter 2004    TABLE OF CONTENTS


The End of Sovereignty?

By Paul Craig Roberts
December 12, 2001

Tyranny is coming to Europe in the form of a new multicultural empire. Ancient sovereign states, such as England and France, and newer ones, such as Germany and Italy, are to cease to exist, and to be folded into a European superstate. National existence is targeted for extinction by about 2006, followed by national consciousness. Preparing the British for their demise as a people, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote in The Independent on November 22 that "in a world where states and the interests of their citizens are so obviously interdependent, we need to rethink our attitudes to concepts like independence and sovereignty."

Prime Minister Tony Blair agrees. The war against terrorism, he says, has made national sovereignty out-of-date.

If you think these are weak arguments for giving up the nation-state, you have a point. The basis for successful political life is a common language, history and culture, which create "a people" sufficiently cohesive for democracy or self-rule to arrive at compromises that reconcile conflicts.

When multicultural diversity replaces "a people," cohesion must be provided by coercion.

Coercion is the response to the massive Third World immigration into European nation-states. The erosion of "a people" by diversity has evoked tyrannical laws in an effort to coerce an artificial commonality.

Great Britain, for example, no longer consists of its indigenous peoples: English, Scots, and Welsh. Britons are having to make room for large numbers of Africans, Indians, Arabs, and Pakistanis. Shear numbers and victim-group status impede assimilation, which, in turn, both impedes the immigrants' progress and fosters resentment by diluting British culture.

The consequence of non-assimilation is racial inequality. The Labor Party has responded by blaming "racism." On December 6, the government implemented draconian "race equality" laws. Public, private, and voluntary organizations are under statutory obligation, policed by the Commission for Racial Equality, to produce racial equality in employment, college admissions, school performance, disciplinary proceedings, pay, benefits, facilities --in short, a thoroughgoing quota system.

Gurbux Singh, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, called the legislation "a powerful lever for change." In effect, British culture has been declared unfair, because immigrants who do not assimilate are disadvantaged.

Europe is as overrun with Third World immigrants as Britain. Some German Social Democrats favor immigration as a way of diluting the German population, thereby diminishing "the worst characteristics of the nation" -- in other words, as a way of de-Germanizing Germany. Proposals are afoot to give the same state subsidies to Islamic cultural organizations as German ones receive.

Dilution of national cultures by immigration is the basis for the European Union. A weakened sense of nationhood in Britain, France, and Germany means no effective opposition to bureaucratic rule by the European Commission in Brussels.

In order to criminalize national patriotism and opposition to immigration, the European Union is pushing forward legislation that makes xenophobia and racism crimes. Once this legislation passes, a European who, for example, criticizes immigration as an anti-diversity measure that is wiping European civilization off the face of the earth, can be found guilty of racism and sentenced to two years in prison.

Similarly, persons who oppose EU measures as contrary to British values or French culture can be imprisoned for xenophobia.

Hand-in-hand with the criminalization of national identity goes the European arrest warrant. Once in effect, an Englishman could be extradited to Greece and put on trial for offenses that are not crimes in England.

No finer recipe for oppression could be devised. The oppression will be felt most keenly by the British, for it is the liberties protected by their unique legal system that will be lost. Oppression leads to civil war, not European unity.

The United States, of course, is on the same path. In fact, it began here with coerced racial integration by judicial decree, a "civil rights act" that destroyed freedom of conscience and substituted coercion for persuasion, and unconstitutional racial quotas that destroyed equality in law.

In the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia, white governments are responding to the postwar propaganda about "racist white hegemonic culture" by disadvantaging the white populations and diluting the "hegemonic culture." In the United States, the melting pot has been evicted by the slogan, "Assimilation is racism."

If the melting pot is dismissed as racist, it must also be racist to question immigration. In the United States, only one side of the immigration debate is permitted -- the side that calls for more immigrants. In Europe, there will soon be no debate at all.

As the United States and European governments are committed to national and cultural suicide, what is the point of defense budgets? Shouldn't the money be used instead for payments to make amends for having once had a hegemonic national identity?

Editor's note: Normally, when I make the decision to include a Commentary, it is because I know that it is true, but in this case part of this Commentary is true while part of it is without merit. It's the assimilation that I, who majored in sociology, has a problem with as it is difficult to assimilate if the various governments pass legislation which alienates people of color, and people do not immigrate to first world nations for no reason. Either they are persecuted in their own homeland or they seek a better wage.

I can give you documentation on the way in which refugees are treated both from a personal experience as well as from people who send me information on refugees' plights in other first world nations, especially one person, so some of the information you just read is untrue, but the beginning of the Commentary is; that's why I allowed it to make its way into this publication.

Moreover, racism does not develop of its own  accord; it is manufactured by the state. When an infant is born, he/she doesn't feel ill about an infant of another race; that's taught, so the issue of racism in this piece is without merit also. Thank you.



The Journal of History - Winter 2004 Copyright © 2004 by News Source, Inc.