JIM BENNETT contrasts “Le Penism” with its counterpart “Euro-Le Penism.” Both turn out to be rather stupid, insular, and xenophobic. The latter variety is widely held among Euro-politicians:

But Patten was using a newer and different definition. His “European civilization” is a synthetic construct floated by the European Union and certain sets of Europhile intellectuals. What is absurd is the way in which this new “European civilization” is defined to fit geographical coincidence and political convenience. This new “European civilization” extends to those nations that are in the European Union, and those which the consensus of Europhile opinion thinks ought to be. . . .

In short, this definition of “European civilization” defies any logic of cultural or civilizational taxonomy. It is as absurd a category as the “Moldavian” language invented by Stalin’s linguists to justify stealing Bessarabia from Romania, and just as blatantly political a construct.

The political purpose of the synthetic concept of “European civilization” is obvious. It is a response to the failure of the Eurocratic elite to find any kind of socio-political glue to hold their creation together. . . .

Once the Euro-elites recognize they have a problem, it is likely they will search for stronger social glue to hold together their Union. They could, of course, resolve their structural problems and loosen their centralist grip, opening themselves to the world and balancing their Continental ties with the external ties many of their members have had to sacrifice for Europeanism. But that would contradict 50 years of centralizing ideology.

Rather, having have found the pull of economic rationalism insufficient, they will start looking for pushes. The most readily available push is fear of enemies, internal and external.

The greatest danger with Europe is not from the little Le Pens seeking to return to inward-looking national protectionism and hatred of foreigners. It is from Eurocrats seeking to construct a grand Euro-Lepenisme of inward-looking continental protectionism and contempt for non-“Europeans,” in the sense of the “European civilization” Patten and others seem to be trying to define.

In the search for enemies, it’s pretty obvious who will be Candidate Number One. America, already a favorite whipping boy economically, politically, and culturally, will be further elevated as Europe’s main rival. As for internal enemies, the European Union is defining a class of “xenophobes” whose xenophobia is evidently exhibited primarily by opposition to the European Union. Ironically, openly Zionist Jews may soon find themselves categorized as “xenophobes.”

I think that Bennett’s hit the nail on the head with this one. It’s why I’ve been worried for some time about where Europe is headed. Corrupt and intellectually bankrupt elites — which the EU has in spades — generally turn to hatred in an effort to maintain their power.