In the modern world we are all supposed to be
empiricists. We determine truth by means of the scientific method and reject as
superstition something that is believed despite the evidence. But we apply this rule selectively. The claims
of Christianity may have been rejected because they depended on belief in
miracles, but the assumptions of the Left are accepted even when they are
contrary to the evidence.
The Left starts from the assumption that people are
equal or at least ought to be equal. If they are not equal the task is to make
them equal. We find this to be more or less assumed and hardly ever questioned.
It is this above all that gives the Left an inherent political advantage.
Consciously or unconsciously many people think that inequality is wrong and
that any instance of it ought to be addressed. But equality of outcome is
fundamentally a Left-wing ideal as it can only occur by means of Government
intervention rather than the free interaction of individuals.
If we allow people to act freely and for the free
market to determine each person’s material value, we will not end up with
equality. Quite the contrary. The Right accepts this, recognises that people
are different and does not attempt to manage the end point of human
interactions. Small government laissez faire capitalism will give us freedom
and prosperity, but will naturally lead to inequality, because the place where
someone ends up financially will depend on his own efforts, luck and the help
or hindrance of those he knows.
Throughout human history some people have done
rather better than others. Some have had more talent, more beauty or strength.
Insofar as there is any evidence it would suggest that all men are created
unequal. Yet despite this we are supposed to believe the contrary. Why? On what
evidence should we believe that everyone is equal or that they ought to be?
One of the methods by which we test the validity of a scientific theory is to
see if it fails. Well the theory that people ought to be made equal has been
tested rather often in the past century or so. On each occasion that a serious
attempt has been made to eradicate inequality, we have seen a loss of
prosperity and freedom. Whenever and wherever socialist ideas have been put
into practice they have performed worse than free markets. They have frequently
led to tyranny and horror on a scale unimaginable before the attempt. Even in
those Western countries where socialism has been tried on a more limited scale
the price of removing inequality has always been a decrease in prosperity, not
merely for the richest members of society, but the poorest too. Socialism has
been falsified, but it is still believed, because it is unfalsifiable to those
who believe in it. Its assumptions therefore are not scientific but rather
quasi-religious.
I have wondered sometimes why some Remain supporters
are quite so devoutly opposed to the UK leaving the EU. I don’t at all believe
that it is because they think it will make the UK less prosperous, nor that
they particularly care about trade relations. I think it is because Brexit is
contrary to their ideal of bringing down borders and thereby achieving the
equality of all humanity. If the European Union could be made to work, then
this would be one more step along the road to eventual World Government, by the
UN or some such body. This I think is the ideal that some Remainers can’t bear
to lose.
What we find once more is Left-Wing Utopianism
coming into contact with actual reality. They are willing to ignore whatever
faults the EU has because it points the way to the abolishment of the sovereign
nation state. Once more the Left wants to mould and change and equalise human
nature rather than accept it. The Right on the contrary realises that it is not
accidental that nation states arose in the world.
Thousands of years ago there was a common
Indo-European language, which was the ancestor of most European languages and
many Asian ones too. All those who spoke it could understand each other. But we
did not remain one great mass of equal Indo-Europeans, the Tower of Babel fell
and we diverged. It must above all have been because we did not wish to
understand each other. We accentuated difference and over the centuries our
tribes became so different that it would be hard to guess that a Russian and a
Brit speak a language that once was the same and that there was no
misunderstanding between us.
Later there was a common Slavic language and a
common Germanic language, but we preferred to be different from our neighbours
and developed in such a way that we created linguistic borders and then the
borders of tribes, then kingdoms and finally nation states. There must be
something in human nature that wishes to do this. Naturally there is a tension
and a balance between the unifying and the separating tendencies. When they
reach equilibrium we have nation states.
The foundation of the sovereign nation state is
about difference rather than equality. If equality was inherent in human nature
we would still be building the Tower of Babel and we might have reached heaven
by now. But this is to be Utopian. The reality is that people prefer to live
with those who speak a similar language. Hungarians, for example, prefer to
live with Hungarians and make a clear distinction between someone who is a
fellow citizen and someone who is not. If that had not been the case then the
modern nation state would never have arisen. The Right (apart from those who
would trade the profits of globalisation for their country) accepts this fact
and therefore sees the nation state as the foundation of international law and
diplomacy. The Left would prefer that first there is no distinction between a
Hungarian and a Frenchman (the EU) and then that there is no distinction
between a Hungarian and anyone else in the world (The UN/World Government).
Hungarians don’t speak an Indo-European language.
The reason for this is that their ancestors migrated from somewhere in Central
Asia and settled in the Carpathian Basin. Since then they have maintained their
identity and their language and for this reason we have a modern sovereign
nation state called Hungary.
The Left’s ultimate goal is to eventually abolish
places like Hungary. It seeks to achieve this in a number of ways. The first
task is for Hungary to lose its sovereignty. Having subsumed its sovereignty in
the EU, it will find that there is no real distinction between a Hungarian and
any other citizen of the EU. This will provide Hungarians with some advantages.
Unlike the UK, they receive a subsidy from the EU. It will be easier for them to live and work in
other European countries. But it will also mean other Europeans will have the
right to go to Hungary.
Hungary has a population of around 10 million
people. What if over the next century or so 10 million arrived in Hungary from
elsewhere. Would these people speak Hungarian? It's a hard language, but they might learn. Still at some
point as boundaries collapse and nation states are abolished we will find the
distinction between a Hungarian and a German abolished too. This isn’t an
accident. It’s the reason for tearing down the borders.
But the Left is not merely intent on removing
European borders. "Today [Europe], tomorrow the world." Equality demands that
citizens of one nation state should be equal with the citizens of any other
nation state. But by definition citizenship means that we have a
responsibility towards our fellow countrymen that we don’t have to anyone else.
It is this that makes a person a citizen. It is this above all that prevents equality
between citizens of one country and citizens of another. This is what the
Left is attacking, for its ultimate aim is to say that there is no distinction
between citizens of different states, because there are no longer separate
states. But how can this be achieved?
At present in the world Hungarians feel an affinity
for each other. They care more for their fellow Hungarians than anyone else
besides family. This is usually called
patriotism. This and this alone makes people willing to pay taxes for the welfare
of their fellow countrymen. It is for
this reason too that when West and East Germany reunited they immediately felt
that they had a special duty towards each other that they didn’t have towards
other Europeans or people in general. But so long as people feel this way we
will never achieve equality in the world, because the distinction between a
German and a person in general is based on difference.
The task of achieving equality and abolishing the
nation state can only be achieved by making Germans realise that a German
citizen can come from anywhere. At this point the distinction between for
instance a German citizen who speaks only French and a French citizen who speaks
only French will dissolve. If in time Hungarians merge with other Europeans,
the distinction between them will merge as well. Soon even the idea of being
Hungarian will cease. If it does we will be one step closer to the Left’s
Utopia.
But the goal of creating equality between all people
in the world can only be achieved when the Hungarian sees no difference between
himself and someone from say Japan or Yemen. But how can that happen if there
are only Hungarians in Hungary? It is crucial to the task of abolishing
Hungary’s boundaries with the rest of the world that Hungarians should be from
everywhere. This is the whole point of abolishing borders. It allows everyone to move
where they please. At this point there will be no countries. Imagine.
All the evidence from history suggests that people
prefer to speak their own language and prefer to live with those who are
similar and with whom they have a common identity. Nation states arose for this
reason. They conform to human nature as it is. We are unequal and the greatest
inequality is that we care more for our families and our fellow citizens than
anyone else. We are willing to fight for them and die for them. This is human
nature as it is. But the Left not content with its failed experiments with
socialism is attempting gradually to abolish the nation state. The way to do
this is through abolishing sovereignty, which eventually leads to the abandonment
of the concept of international borders and a world where there is free
movement everywhere from anywhere. There is no reason to suppose that this
experiment will end well. History suggests that when people with very different
identities and languages mix the result frequently is conflict. Perhaps this time will be different.
The Left’s goal of achieving equality even when it
is contrary to human nature has caused immense historical suffering. The
problem is that because this is a semi-religious ideal, no amount of evidence
to the contrary will persuade them to give it up. They are angry about Brexit,
not because of trade or prosperity. They are angry because we dare to stand up
against their attempt to abolish the sovereign nation state and to say that we
believe there ought to be borders we can control and a real distinction between
our fellow countrymen and the rest of the world. Brexiteers
are heretics rebelling against all that the Left has tried to achieve since
1945. We have committed the unforgivable sin, by questioning what must not be questioned. Burning at the stake would be too kind a punishment for they can see that their Tower is crumbling. This is why they are so furious and why they are fighting such a continual rearguard action. It is also why we must succeed.
