Ostatnie dni Europy. Epitafium dla Starego Kontynentu

by Walter Laqueur

Podsumowanie wieloletniej pracy Laqueura nad stanem i przemianami współczesnej Europy. Apokaliptyczny podtytuł nie jest przesadą. Autor, śledząc rozwój naszego kontynentu w ciągu ostatnich stu lat, pokazuje, jak stopniowo gubi on dawny charakter i traci wpływy w każdej dziedzinie. Zwraca uwagę na zgubne na dłuższą metę w skutkach zjawiska społeczne, jak walka o krótszy tydzień pracy, obniżenie wieku emerytalnego, wzrost wydatków na opiekę społeczną, spadek dzietności, wzrost przestępczości, napływ ludności z innych kontynentów, ekonomia nastawiona eksport, uzależnienie od dostaw paliw z Rosji.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, Islam

194 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Walter Ze'ev Laqueur was an American historian, journalist and political commentator. Laqueur was born in Breslau, Lower Silesia, Prussia (modern Wrocław, Poland), into a Jewish family. In 1938, he left Germany for the British Mandate of Palestine. His parents, who were unable to leave, became victims of the Holocaust.

Laqueur lived in Israel from 1938 to 1953. After one year at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he joined a Kibbutz and worked as an agricultural laborer from 1939 to 1944. In 1944, he moved to Jerusalem, where he worked as a journalist until 1953, covering Palestine and other countries in the Middle East.

Since 1955 Laqueur has lived in London. He was founder and editor, with George Mosse, of the Journal of Contemporary History and of Survey from 1956 to 1964. He was also founding editor of The Washington Papers. He was Director of the Institute of Contemporary History and the Wiener Library in London from 1965 to 1994. From 1969 he was a member, and later Chairman (until 2000), of the International Research Council of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington. He was Professor of the History of Ideas at Brandeis University from 1968 to 1972, and University Professor at Georgetown University from 1976 to 1988. He has also been a visiting professor of history and government at Harvard, the University of Chicago, Tel Aviv University and Johns Hopkins University.

Laqueur's main works deal with European history in the 19th and 20th centuries, especially Russian history and German history, as well as the history of the Middle East. The topics he has written about include the German Youth Movement, Zionism, Israeli history, the cultural history of the Weimar Republic and Russia, Communism, the Holocaust, fascism, and the diplomatic history of the Cold War. His books have been translated into many languages, and he was one of the founders of the study of political violence, guerrilla warfare and terrorism. His comments on international affairs have appeared in many American and European newspapers and periodicals.

(Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Joel Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book, which proposes that Europe is in an irretrievable downward spiral, based on demographics and an inability to get its act together. On the one hand, it is well written, and flows easily. It is much more scholarly than another book I have read that puts forth a similar thesis (America Alone). What I found lacking, though, was an in depth analysis on what could be done, or what could have or should have been done to prevent what the author sees as an inevitable negative outcome. The book tries to steer clear of being all about the demise of the Western world and the rise of Islam (unlike America Alone), and does a relatively good job in this regard. The subjects discussed are delicate ones -- failed immigration policies, social welfare programs that resulted in large unmotivated groups that failed to integrate into society, and education issues. It is difficult to take a position on any of these issues without being labelled as either a bleeding heart liberal or a cold-hearted conservative. It would be interesting to read a book that presents both views and tries to reconcile them.

[Aaron · Rating 1 out of 5]

The main assumption in this book is that change is necessarily bad, that because Europe will look different in 2050 than it did in 1950, this equates to end of the Continent. This of course is absurd. The author also seems to equate the nation, that is the people, with the country, that is the geographic space known as, for example, Italy. This misunderstanding allows him to make overblown statements such as, "In a hundred years the population of Europe will be only a fraction of what it is today, and in two hundred years some countries may have disappeared" (22). What does this even mean? I believe that if you gave me a page number, 1-226, I could find either a similar over-statement, or conversely, a completely reductive statement, such as one of his many generalizations regarding Muslims--"The Muslim children come from patriarchal families, likely to be beaten for even light violations of the strict rules prevailing"(219). Even better are his critiques of "gangsta rap," "hip hop culture," and "street gangs." Since there are no footnotes, and rarely any examples of citation, his assertions regarding the young Algerians living in the Parisian banlieues must be taken at face value. Because I seriously doubt he took part in any ethnographic studies, we, the readers, are left to trust this "historian" and his judgments regarding youth culture as fact. I choose to see him as completely out of touch, an old man who is mourning the death of his personal Ideal. Luckily, not everyone, believes that the only things that are "good" come from the middle of the 20th Century.

[Mykolas Lozoraitis · Rating 3 out of 5]

It‘s still unusual to talk about the new Marxism in Europe and many are surprised to hear about it. People are surprised when Marxism is being associated with the West and the European Union project, not with Russia. The original initiative for post-war European unification was Christian and radically anti-Marxist. This initiative actually collapsed in 1954 and was finally abandoned in the early 1970s. The Christian vision of the united Europe was replaced firstly by a functionalist and fundamentally liberal and later by an openly Marxist philosophy. Today's doctrine, which the European Union is based on is the result of such combination, therefore it‘s correct, although still unusual to call it liberal communism. In the late 1960s Europe‘s vision was set by Jean Monnet. According to it, the future Europe must be rebuilt and hasn‘t existed yet at all. The construction of the future Europe was envisaged through free trade, common interests and the constant resolution of crises. At least the first two are essentially liberal principles. However, Monnet's vision is based on the principles of negative dialectics, one of the basic ideas of the new Marxism. The project of European unification is based on social constructivism. It‘s a belief that all changes take a place first and foremost in human consciousness and that all social reality, every aspect of it, is artificially created by humans and can be re-created by humans. Such an approach is not possible without a negative dialectic. It claims that reality depends on how it‘s being perceived and that change develops in a path of constant denial of what has been in the past. This is exactly what‘s happening when we are talking about European unification: historical and social circumstances (primarily the experience of war) establish the new European entity (the future European), however, he realizes that it‘s not necessary to know the political reality, but instead to create it beyond the framework of experience. Monnet's idea that Europe has never existed and must be created is an expression of the negative dialectic of neo-Marxism. European integration is only possible through relentless crises, which must always be resolved not by changing the situation itself (that is, not by solving the problem), but by changing the way people perceive it. Monnet says that future is surpassed and de facto created by human imagination in their consciousness, so reality can be changed by a certain regulatory idea, as some glasses through which we choose to look at the world. In the neofunctionalist vision of European unification such regulatory idea is a market idea, so the EU is legitimized by the principle that everything is done in the name of a better functioning market, which will guarantee the prosperity of EU countries. It‘s no coincidence that critical theory (the new Marxism) and the logic of overcoming its opposites are becoming part of EU integration process. The attitude of changing one‘s thinking (reinterpreting reality) in the face of the crisis is a must for an ongoing integration project. The current direction of EU integration is the most consistent case of negative dialectics in politics. The project of European unity, which has been developed for half a century, is inseparable from other fundamental theories defining the new Marxism. Amongst them, two are particularly striking: Eric Hobsbawm's inventive traditions and Herbert Marcuse's repressive ideas of the state and the emancipation of minorities. The leaders of 21th century Europe are now stating publicly that the modern sovereign nation-state, the national homogeneity of European countries and their defined territoriality are not only historically random, but also harmful. In the Paris manifesto, the most prominent critics of the current European project rightfully point out that “Europe boasts an unprecedented commitment to human freedom, but this freedom is very one-sided. It‘s presented as freedom from restraint: sexual freedom, freedom of expression, freedom to "be oneself". The 68‘s generation sees these freedoms as costly victories over the once almighty and repressive cultural regime”. Indeed, the neofunctional-Marxist or liberal-communist project of European unification took over and applied the above-mentioned neo-Marxist ideas. Nations, as the ultimate basis for the legitimacy of political choices are treated as obsolete and changeable product of 19th and 20th centuries, a product of alleged social engineering, in particular the creation of national symbols and myths. According to this Marxist logic, every nation emerged and the people living in a particular area realized that they belong to a certain nation only because it was propagated as propaganda by the nationalist intelligence of that time. At the same time, attempts are being made to create a European identity by forming new „European traditions“ and writing a completely new European history. It‘s eloquent that the history of Europe is always written as a story of the liberation of the individual from all constraints. These efforts to create a European history are doomed for contradictions, because it‘s impossible to create identity without defining it, moreover such chosen path does not allow such definition. New Europe must be open to the whole world, must love and accept others more than its own people and at the same time pretend that it sees no difference between them. According to G. Delanty, Europe needs to find European identity that is strong enough to bring together its members, but also broad enough to include them rather than exclude them. Delanty also points out the Marxist universalist principle that nations don‘t matter, because we are all the same human beings, thus the unity of the people of Europe can only be achieved by abolishing the limited collective identities that divide European societies. In the post-war period and especially after the failure of the USSR regime, a subtle method was chosen for this - conscious and purposeful production of differences and diversity, the so-called identity policy. The collective features that guarantee identity (gender, orientation, nationality, race, religion, etc.) are highlighted in the public life, new and different groups of people and their uniqueness are being emphasized, which leads to a provision that this identity is legally irrelevant. This is called non-discrimination. This is served by Marcuse's theory of „repressive tolerance", which states that political power must actively contribute to the emancipation of minorities and the suppression of dominant identities or attitudes. Tolerance has always meant tolerating something that you consider to be a mistake or an evil, non-discrimination means treating different things differently and equal things equally. In the world of the New Marxism, both concepts turn upside down. Tolerance from now on means abandoning what is morally good or bad altogether and non-discrimination - treating different things as equal. On one hand, various minorities are being constructed and „liberated“ and at the same time, a pan-European society is being unified - the future, in the words of Nietzsche, a good European must be able to see and ignore identities, because these are said to have no meaning and should not be the basis of a collective definition. Thus, by neutralizing collective identities, the possibility of assessing the traits or behavior that determine them is also lost. The new Marxism makes it possible to notice and describe differences in people or their behavior, but in no way to appreciate it. The French philosopher Pierre Manent describes exactly how all this manifests itself in the current European Union: „Any big collective difference threatens the unity of humanity, so any difference needs to be small... [...] The only and a really bad thing (became) thinking or acting that one form of life is worse or better than another”. However, when no form of behavior can be judged in terms of good and evil, we have no norms left. No historically established way of life, no nation's attitude can be regarded as having an intrinsic or moral value, therefore, the process of Europeanisation can and must be freely changed by introducing new, unfamiliar standards of public conduct and the disregard for identities as a fundamental norm, a fundamental principle of European identity itself. There is a couple of perfect examples of how neo-Marxist ideology is spreading in practice in Europe, not in the continent, but in the pseudo-political legal system. One is a decision by the European Court of Justice in the case Comanas v. Romania where the court ruled that all EU member states must recognize homogeneous „marriages" in other EU countries, allowing same-sex „spouses" to reside even if one of them is not an EU citizen. This means that the countries are obliged to legalize homogeneous „marriages" by themselves, but to recognize their validity in the country. After all, the only basis for the right of residence in this case is a homogeneous „marriage" between a non-EU citizen and an EU citizen, which was concluded in another country. However, deconstructing the natural concept of the family between man and woman has been one of the main goals of Marxism since the 1848 Communist Party Manifesto, which has become the most important point in the new Marxist deconstruction program in recent decades. Another perfect example is also from European Court of Human Rights decision - states have the right to deprive children from their parents who, because of their beliefs, refuse to admit them to public schools and choose home schooling instead. This has become a particularly huge issue in countries, where early and sexualized sex education is legal, which by conservative parents considered to be unacceptable to children and incompatible with their moral beliefs. Such decision of the European Court of Human Rights finalizes the provision that the state is better aware of how children must be raised, what values they must be taught, meanwhile the freedom and preferences of the family to raise children according to their beliefs is radically restricted. The attitude that the state knows better than the family how children must be raised also stems directly from the doctrine of Marxism and was even more widely applied in practice in Soviet Russia after the October Revolution when throughout the country, babies were taken from their parents and raised as „good communists" in designated boarding schools/ communes. The Soviet experiment failed, but the experiment of liberal communist Europe is still going on. It‘s clear that it‘s the courts and in particular the Court of Justice of the European Union, are the institutions through which a reckless expansion of EU governance is being applied ignoring a national sovereignty. Other EU institutions don‘t have the power to take over the decisions in some areas, such as education or family policy. European Court of Justice can do anything and its decisions are obligatory to all of the member states. Such national sovereignty narrowing is in itself a Marxist destruction of the nation-state as a supposedly artificial product and a supposedly historical obsolescence. In the light of the decisions of the European courts, there is a clear tendency to adopt decisions that weaken the power of states, solutions that legitimize alternatives to the natural family, establish linguistic and historical pluralism and expel religion from public life. All of these are features of the new Marxism. The mission of the New Marxism to dismantle (or, more scientifically, deconstruct) a nation, religion, language, history, family and anything that holds a person tied to his or her homeland, community, customs and norms and all of it is consistently implemented with the assistance of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Only by abandoning this practice altogether European Union will be able to break free from the trap of the new Marxism.

[Michał Hołda · Rating 3 out of 5]

An essay about Europe's political and demographic problems, and as if you are not living in early 21st century it doesn't say much news. Can help with thinking about resolutions though.

[Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book about Muslim immigrants to Europe, their lack of interest in assimilation and the failure of the European countries to motivate them to learn the new language or participate in secular education. High Muslim birth rates, liberal immigration policies and low European birth rates mean that in many local areas, immigrants are a majority, and the national authorities have effectively ceded control of certain neighborhoods to the immigrants.

Not xenophobic, but definitely critical of both those who won't assimilate, and the countries who not only tolerate behavior from the immigrants that they wouldn't from their own citizens, but keep others from criticizing their behavior.

[Michael Connolly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is mainly about how the demography of Europe is changing for the worse. Traditional Europeans have a falling birthrate, and large numbers of Muslim immigrants are failing to assimilate. One thing that distinguishes the Muslim minority from other minorities is that the Muslim guests hate their hosts more than their hosts hate them. Usually, it is the other way around. There is a section on Tariq Ramadan, the moderate Muslim intellectual, and whether he is being honest about his moderation. Laqueur also talks about the European Union and the economic problems of the welfare state.

[Marcio Atz · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are à politically correct snow flake, don't read this book. If you want a realistic look at where the old and beautiful continent is walking towards, maybe you must read it. Good statistics, revealing insights, where it all goes and might end... very disturbing. Excellent read!

[Robert Bor · Rating 4 out of 5]

A depressing theme. Who would like to read about the demise of their own people, their own country, their own continent? Mr Laqueur takes us on a trip through various nations in Europe. The unchecked immigration has not played out as it was supposed to do. The new, mostly muslim, citizens do not feel inclined to become a part of their host countries. The book describes the coming into being of parallel societies with their own rules, but strongly leeching (ie, disproportionate use of welfare) on their hosts.

The book was written in 2006, eleven years ago. In the meantime a lot of the patterns he described then have come into being. Integration did not take place. Islamization has grown stronger. The muslims have started to organise themselves politically. Welfare states are overstrained by low economic growth and an increasing base of dependents. Something has to give sometime. The European Union is having a difficult time dealing with the crises coming its way. This fact is indeed straining the union to breaking point.

A number of trends he foresaw did not materialize. The new generations did not move away from islam and embrace street culture, music and the boons of modern society. Au contraire, they grew closer to the Ummah. Turkey was not able to stick to its secular guns, but has been overturned by the pan-Turk islamists under the leadership of the self-proclaimed caliph Erdogan.

The process of countering the greying of Europe with immigration from mainly islamic countries turned out to have been a huge mistake. These people are not going to take care of us when we are old. The second generation did not integrate. The third generation did not integrate. Why would the fourth? The fifth? They will not swear fealty to our principles, our flag and keep it going when we rest our grey heads. Instead, they will turn it into a mirror image of what we see in North Africa and the Middle East.

Mr Laqueur shows great knowledge of events that unfolded in Europe over time. One field where his knowledge is lacking is the area of islam, though:
– the leeching of welfare benefits is deeply ingrained in the Jizya mindset, where kufar are obliged to pay tribute to the muslims
– sex slavery is not at all contradictory to islamic law; muslims are explicitly allowed to engage in this debauchery
– halal is not only about food, but about all aspects of life.
– although there is no direct coordination by islamic authorities of riots by muslim youths, the relation is deeper. It consists of a hateful view of the kufar world, deeply ingrained in islamic law. This lays the basis for violent actions against the kufar
– the churches have not given up the fruitless endeavor of interfaith dialogue. It is still continuing as a one-sided affair; the christian side giving and the islamic side taking. The church wallowing in guilt, islam glad to mete it out. The perfect sado-masochist relationship.

[Justin]

The story The last days of Europe by Walter Laqueur, Our author reveals history facts and standpoints on the development and downfall of europe from the 1950’s to the present day in his nonfiction book.
In our story the book takes place in England, France and many other countries in Europe. Along with this idea the story conveys our characters and how they impacted Europe. Some characters that it mentions are gangs Jewish Germans along with others. The ideas this author conveys are mainly about population size, crime, and religious believe. This is because through the book he shows how Europe is failing with the decrease in population and rise in crime from gangs in other countries that are entering into new countries in Europe.
Walter Laqueur's book is a good read but it is not one of my favorites. In his story he reveals lots of information about Europe, but he reveals it at a slow pace. For me this makes the book drag on and get boring after a while. Another reason it would not be my favorite choice is because of the slow pace the book tends to get tricky to pay attention to. Making you often question what you just read. His story is written In the descriptive style because he is describing the cause and effect of things that affected Europe as a whole.
I feel this book is a good read for someone that is just looking to sit down and read somewhere that has no distractions and no reason to move. Along with that this book would be very enjoyable to some that really takes heart in European history.

[William · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.25 stars. This is an excellent description of the post-modern decline in Western civilization wrapped in the transformation of Europe. Written in 2007, this book tracks well with events in 2021. Interestingly, this book pairs well with Mark Steyn’s 2006 book “America Alone,” which predicts the same decline in Europe, thus leaving America alone to uphold western civilization with American characteristics. Here we are in 2021 and many of the debilitating effects of uncontrolled immigration, lack of integration and assimilation, and radical Islamic terrorism are upon America. More disturbing are the subversive and violent tactics used by far-left groups in the USA that are following those mentioned by Laqueur as originating in Europe. American subversives are using that playbook and pushing its ideological imperatives to destroy America from within.

[John J Moroney · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit dated as written in 2005 but quite prescient on the slow decline of Europe and Russia. Provides a solid understanding of part of Brexit roots and a more positive outlook for England. All the main themes - demographic decline, the impact of Muslim immigration and the failure to integrate are just as important now but author provides a solid explanation of the unique causes of Muslim separatism now into 3 generations

[June Huuha · Rating 1 out of 5]

Hyvin oikeistolainen näkemys Euroopasta, muukalaisvihamielinen.

[Zuzia Czapska]

Bez oceny… chyba już się pogodziłam ze te książki będą na jedno kopyto😞

[The_J · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent but no America Alone.

[Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't feel like updating this review just yet, so here's what I had to say while reading the book:

Not quite done reading this book yet, but it's an interesting analysis of (some) of the demographic issues facing Europe today, e.g. the plummeting birth rate among "native" Europeans, difficulties integrating immigrant populations (which tend to have much higher birth rates) and the frictions between all these groups. Living in Germany last year, I saw some of the things discussed in this book: Many of my students were Turkish (or from Turkish families), and some of them couldn't speak German!
More on the book when I finish it, which should be soon.
-Lynn

[Raully · Rating 4 out of 5]

As pessimistic a forecast as one can get. As Europe's economy sags, it role as "moral superpower" goes unheeded, and its populations becomes Islamized, Lacquer foresees a future for Europe as "a museum of world history snd civilization preaching the importance of morality in world affairs to a nonexistent audience." At least tourist dollars are way up!

[Michal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Docela pesimistický obraz Evropy na začátku 21. století. Je jasné, že Evropa ve své migrační politice učinila spousty chyb, které budou ovlivňovat ještě dění našich dětí. Autor předkládá podrobný popis migrační politiky v UK, Německu,Španělsku, Francii a Nizozemí...země střední Evropy chybí v jeho výčtu. Přesto uvažuje v velkém světovém měřítku...doporučuji

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book offers sobering look at the demographic shifts that Europe is currently undergoing. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning more about the direction Europe is headed. Well researched and written.

[Hassan Modarresi · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only a xenophobia can write and connect to this book, it reminds me of fascism in the 30's and 40's!!!!

[F · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not prophetic. just clear sighted, not politically correct, the truth without euphemisms.