The Gas House
The British people have decided to leave the European Union. They have chosen to leave a house burning down, and almost always the first one out, is usually the safest.
Contrary to what is imagined, though there will be rough spots in the future of Britain, she will now enjoy the benefit of a cheaper sterling and will most likely see an increase in demand for both her products and “services”, the latter including her national services, and alliance. She is not likely to suffer anything near as much as some imagine but rather be in a position to renegotiate her interests as she likes, and is her profit. The consternation felt at first will only allow her to limit the effects of wasteful welfare projects at home, and goad her people into working a little harder for greater efficiency. Britain is in a far better position than many imagine.
The real problem here is going to be Europe. Europe is in dire trouble, an existential trouble. And the trouble coming from Europe will have the potential to cause dire war, quite possibly world war.
The situation in the Mid East is obvious, we have elsewhere covered it, and there is little reason to cover it again. The Middle East is a tinder box now, ready for a single spark. The major powers are now entwined in ways that it will be unlikely for them to disentangle themselves merely through normal channels. The only real way to avoid all out war is to depart and not look back. But none of the major powers have this capacity at present, and may not have it in the near, or even distant future the way things look now.
But if the Middle East is a tinder box, Europe is the gas house fully loaded with all kinds of explosive fuels.
There are many problems in Europe, including the economic problems she faces, a continent with few natural resources, and declining productivity. And now with a rising population, and gigantic debts. All this in itself is very worrisome. It is actually one of the chief reasons the British decided to leave. But there is much more that is little spoken of.
For a very long time it has been assumed that European culture was on the decline, no doubt caused by disaffection with the practices of the past. Colonialism had the tendency to belittle native cultures and think them not important enough to preserve as the march to progress swamped all in its path. We should not think far beyond the “The White Man’s Burden” to understand the thinking of the colonial Europeans. Yet, as they say on the street, “what goes around eventually comes around” and so it has in Europe, and elsewhere.
Europe is now facing colonialism not as the architect, but as the subject. The Europeans themselves are seeing their own cultures in danger of being relegated to the past, as being ineffectual and an anachronism in the modern globalist’ schemes. As the world’s older cultures have been annihilated, and made incompatible with the presumed “future” outlook, these elements are now seeking shelter in Europe and the United States where the “new” “advanced” culture of the future is to preside. Yet the truth is that the destructive nature of colonialism is simply comming full circle, its now devouring its own architects.
We are now seeing the most advanced nations of the Earth themselves being reduced to open air supermarkets, amusement parks, and twenty four hour bars. There is an underlying carnival atmosphere that has begun to reek of lawlessness and disorder, as were many of the protectorates of old. Borders are non-existent, and anyone can simply sail off the high seas and make their way into the colony, as long as commerce is benefited.
But all of this would be to some mere “metaphysical” speculation and not really “provable”; and so it is that we must relate the real foundations from whence this “speculation” comes from-sadly.
Recently the Greek people voted, much as the British, to in effect leave the European Union. A few days after their referendum they were told that they are now back in the Union, and only owe a slightly larger sum than they did before, for the privilege of having had the referendum in the first place. In effect the Greek people voted out. Instead they were instantly brought back in, with an extra toll, and on credit-they would therefore owe their toll in the future.
The will of the Greek people was instantly dismissed, much as if they were just a protectorate of some greater power. Yet the burden on the Greek people remains. It has not gone away. And with the Brexit vote the debt owed by the Greek people has in fact become more prohibitive.
From this we can very easily deduce the true impact of the British withdrawal on the economy of Greece, this is elementary and we will not get into it in detail here. But we can briefly say that Greece now owes more, yet with even less prospect of repayment than before(if ever there was a possibility of repayment at all.) But there is much much more at stake here than meets the eye.
Social instability will rise. This is a certainty being that the global economy itself will begin to degenerate, and most especially the European economy itself due to Britain’s exit. The British themselves now back on the “high seas” will negotiate it as their wisdom will allow, but for the rest of Europe, and the world, the huge swells will not be so easily negotiable. This is especially true of Greece and some of her neighbors.
We have nations like Italy, Spain, Portugal, and France(as well as others to the East) who have sizable debts in Euro denominations. Seeing the Euro collapse might well suit them just fine. There is here the potential for mass “haircuts” on their loans. Now that Britain is out, the road may be clear for others with yet more pressing needs to follow. Any other nation leaving the Union for any reason whatever is likely to cause the EU to explode, and the Euro to collapse! Yet there is some great incentives for some to see exactly this scenario unfold.
However, the economic instability is only a catalyst, and that’s the most frightening aspect of these developments.
For years it has been assumed that local cultures could simply be replaced by a “Global” international epicurean culture. There was no need to worry about the degeneration of local European cultures, a brave new world culture would simply replace them, the carnival atmosphere would replace any depressing native culture and all would be happy. It was assumed, as with India and China back in the hey day of colonialism that something new would simply replace the old, and as long as this was profitable, to some, everything, and everyone would be better off. But was that a sane assumption? Is it a sane assumption now?
Again we cant get into much of how much things have changed for the better or not, but one thing is clear, three billion Chinese and Indians seeking the life of Western Europeans is not going to be an easy thing to accomplish. There will be, and have already been tremendous strains. Point being made here is that any transitions, even if some will call them succesful, have come at tremendous costs, and the tally is by no means finished. Both China and India are well aware of the need to preserve their own native cultures and sovereinty of their lands, and now are trying to come to terms with how they will deliver the new globalist mode of existence to their large populations. Both these very large nations are having to deal with maintaining their own identities, while at the same time making good on tremendously expensive promises.
But this is the same with Greece, and Slovakia, Serbia, and Romania, and Bulgaria, and Albania. All these lands too-though much smaller- want to maintain the sovereignty of their own lands, and to a large degree preserve the culture passed down to them from their parents and grandparents, as well as deliver the promises of newly found wealth and technological freedom. But it should not be assumed that they are all simply “modern” Europeans and do not really care for their own traditions or cultural norms. The British people made it clear that there is still great concern for native culture and norms, for self-determination, and individual freedom.
Italians too have felt the sting of endless waves of migrants flooding into their nation, and stressing their culture. Add to this the insult of seeing their economy struggle, and debts rising ever higher, and the underlying stress is palpable to the average citizen. There is in many of these nations a rising tide of anger and rebellion towards the EU, in part because there is an underlying fear that their culture and way of life will be upended if current trends continue as long as they remain in the EU.
The British, now heading towards the door, will face ordeals, Scotland and Northern Ireland may desire an exit. But in any case, the British have options. They are militarily and economically powerful enough to still have options. The nations mentioned above in Eastern Europe have far fewer options. Moreover their destinies are far more essential to Europe than was Britain in reality. Britain could afford to go her own way, she had the power to do so, and did not use the Euro currency. It is not quite the same for the eastern European nations. And in the case of Greece, it is clear that there is much below the radar that will only add to instability. All these nations are also strategically unstable, with large powerful neighbors that they have not been at peace with. We can see most of the Eastern bloc next to Russia is on that list.
In effect, if we assume that Europe will open all borders and allow the flow of large numbers of people from the East it will mean that nations like Greece, which for four hundred years tried to free themselves from Muslim domination will now see their nations overrun by these same people they tried for ages to keep at bay.
It is assumed that the majority of people in Eastern Europe, many who are of Eastern Orthodox traditions will simply not mind having to share large parts of their lands with these same people who oppressed them for four hundred years. But is that a good assumption? Is that really a tenable assumption? Or is that simply the conclusion of a rampant and rapacious colonialism finally coming home to roost? A Neo-Colonialism now cloaked in some form of superficial “humanitarian” idealism.
I understand fully the explosive and corrosive nature of these statements, but some points here need to be brought up in honest terms. Again, it has been assumed that cultures really dont care about their own traditions, their own self determination, their own families, their own freedom or prosperity enough to upend neo-colonialist commercial aspirations. But is that really such a bright assumption? The British vote clearly states that it is not. The nationalist movements in both Europe and the US clearly state clearly that it is not!
But in the case of Greece we are looking at potential instability of the highest order brought on by the dynamic of strategic liability. It is the same in nations like Slovakia, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Romania, Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. In effect the European hierarchy is telling these people that the general colonial directorate knows what’s good for them, and they simply need to make room. But there will be those within these nations who will refuse for various reasons, and I think this is a fatal flaw in the Neo-Colonialist scheme and could result in a sudden disaster.
You would be assuming that in a degenerating economy these people in Eastern and Southern Europe would have to share their limited resources with people whom they have had no particularly good relations with in the past! An assumption not likely to hold true. This is Europe’s detonator.
Any sudden turbulence here creates tremendous potential for immense instability, violence, and collapse of social order as happened in Ukraine. We should not forget that Russia too is of Eastern Orthodox origins and has gone as far as to recently propose that Istanbul be renamed Constantinople. They are also mainly of Slavic origin, and the old bonds should not be assumed dissolved wholly. This only heightens the danger for Europe. (This might explain why NATO recently built a “Missile Defense System” in Romania, probably fearing a Ukrainian like religious and racial schism in Eastern Europe.) Again it should simply not be assumed that old scores are magically settled by the advent of a few technological gadgets, or through specious ideological presumptions made popular through superficial media-in all probability they are not.
Borders Must be Shut
The Solution really is a very simple one. Perhaps difficult in some ways to implement, uncomfortable, and politically “incorrect”, but it is quite simple, at least the first steps are. The borders must be shut! They must be shut tight, and this must be done immediately! With no delay. The European council needs to read the writing on the wall now, that it still has some time to act, and shut those borders beyond any doubt or compromise, or question. This is the only way to preserve Europe, if Europe can be preserved at all.
Cultural norms will ultimately prevail, and at the first sight of stress old resentments will flare. The present economic malaise is no doubt a catalyst. But it can only get worse if the fundamental social instabilities are not in some way diffused. The economy can go bad without significant social instability if the fundamental cultural potential for instability is taken out of the equation.
There will be serious economic ramifications to any restriction of migration, but this is the price for life. To live one must expend some energy, some of the stores must be spent. The present Global Economic system was both flawed and corrupt from the start. It now has to pay the price for its miscalculations. Better a lesser price, than a far greater one.
Yes we can make assumptions a plenty, but the core of cultures is not easily erased. This can be seen quite clearly, we need not make assumptions based on sheer fantasy. It is very unlikely that these Eastern and Southern European nations are simply going to “give in” to modernism, than is Israel likely to open its borders to Syria or Egypt as it seeks to maintain and promote its own self determination. This is especially true if adverse circumstances prevail, such as a bad economy or continuing hostilities in the Middle East. So for this reason it is time for the European leaders to bite the bullet and put an end to this open border policy.
This must apply not only to migrants from the Mid East, or Africa, but also to internal European movements. One of the chief reasons Britain chose to leave was that many workers from Eastern Europe were coming to the British nation seeking work. For various reasons this too had a dire impact on the comfort of the natives. Whether we like it or not, these effects are real, and will at some point in time boil over. The Europeans have to develop a far more conservative border policy both within Europe and without in order to preserve the Union at all.
Moreover, the consequences of failure could be, and almost certainly will be globally cataclysmic. The disintegration of Europe will almost certainly lead to open confrontations eventually. Whether two years or ten, the end result is likely to be extreme violence of a kind we have not yet experienced. Europe must do whatever it can to steer away from any such possibility. This is the good thing to do-for now.
We should not presume that practical matters are not of importance. It is true that any change in migration policy will have some unwanted effects on the global economy. But this global economy is already in dire trouble. There will be those who will question if the European Union can be of any value if the economy crashes catastrophically. But the answer is yes. Cooperation of a precise nature is always a benefit, especially in difficult circumstances.
When it comes to internal migration the problem is not inter European migration as a practice, but the level of it, and the ultimate impact on the local economies and cultures. A controlled, ordered and tempered inter European migration acceptable to local economies and cultures can be engineered. It is more difficult than an uncontrolled migration to effectuate but it is achievable and in the end would be more beneficial to all. The problem is not so much immigration as an absolute, but the level of it, and the order and practical implementation of it. To the degree that it can benefit the local economies and cultures it is acceptable and even profitable to the whole of Europe as well. But in order for it to benefit the European Union immigration must be highly ordered and well regulated both in volume, and frequency. There must also be an understanding of what native rights these migrants will have in a local community. With modern technology it is quite possible to fine tune immigration as needed. But only if the laws are followed. If on the other hand laws are dismissed then fundamental instability will almost certainly ensue.
The subject of human migration is extremely complex, especially in the context of the present highly advanced civilization. Yet over the past few decades it’s been reduced to the level of incoherence and complete degeneration of any structure. This present implementation of migration policy is not sustainable, and will not survive in any case. The quicker adjustments are made, the better.
These notions may be restrictive, and some will protest, but in the end, there is no other alternative. We have seen very clearly that the British people reject the idea of unregulated immigration, and unmitigated assignment of natural rights and privileges to migrants-and the British are only one of many nationalities that will come to reject this policy. Waiting for disapproval to turn into outright reaction is only going to endanger the stability of not only Europe, but the entire world.
Moreover, the underlying economic system must be adjusted. If all we can do is “print” money and seek to make it worth something by importing immigrants to work it into value, the system will collapse, and immigration itself will become the victim. In point of fact this is exactly what is happening now. The system is failing, and adjustments have to be made immediately so as to not make this failure terminal.
There is still value in the European Union, but it must make immediate adjustments in order to survive. These adjustments may at first be painful, but in the long run they will be both profitable and sustainable.
Migration, Financial Stress, and Strategic instability make the situation in Europe potentially explosive. As in all such cases immediately alleviating the pressure is always the most reasonable course of action. This can most effectively begin with sealing the borders.