The End Of History -the Eu Version

The end of history - the EU version

Recently I have come across a curious document called „History Interpretation as a Cause of Conflicts in Europe” „Thematic Leaflet No. 01”. It has been issued by an organization called „UNITED for Intercultural Action European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants and refugees” with its seat in Amsterdam, Netherlands”. It boasts of being „the biggest anti-racism network” set up in 1992. The author of the leaflet is Natalia Sineaeva, a Youth Helsinki Citizens' Assembly member. „United” seems to be a bulky yet unified organization with plenty of departments, branches. More than 2000 organisations. It cooperates with 2200 groups all over Europe. It has a legion of suppporters (560) and an unspecified number of sponsors and takes pride in its ‘interculturalism’, ‘respect’, ‘awareness’ and a few other catchy slogans. But what it particularly stresses is its „independence” from its various sponsors. We learn that „ „United” is and will remain independent from all political parties, organisations or states (...)That is why financial contributions are sought from a wide range of supporting organisations, foundations, individuals, national ministries, the Council of Europe and the Commission of the EU”. To prove how independent „Untied” is it tells us that what it writes „does not necessarily reflect the position nor the opinion of our sponsors. Sponsors are not to be held responsible for any use that may be made of it.” Curiously enough, „Untied” admits that it takes money from whoever gives tit and still it never rewards the sponsor! Who could believe that? If this is the case, then „United” is the first ever organisation that is independent of those who heavily subsidize it. And it is quite instructive to take a look at the long list of the unselfish sponsors of „United”. The EU Youth funds pay the costs involved in running the „United” webpage. European Commission (General Budget/Socrates/Youth Programme/DG Employment Social Affairs) is the major sponsor next to the Home Office UK , Ministry of Interior-BZK NL , Ministry of Foreign Affairs-BUZA NL, National Integration Office Sweden, Service Nationale de la Jeunesse Luxembourg, LNU - Norwegian Youth Council, Social Insurance Office , Federal Service for Combating Racism - Fund for Projects Against Racism CH ...and many, many others. In fact a whole army of „organisations, foundations, individuals, national ministries” to be independent of. But still we mustn’t think that „United” – to use an older flowery leftist terminology- are „chaindogs” or „lackeys” of their numerous paymasters, need we ?

One little suspicion arises somehow when we observe that „United” somehow lacks independent scientists, scholars and historians with solid background. What we have instead are „history teachers” and „anti-racism activists”. Poor diversity among such a diversified organisation, isn’t it? And this suspision is reinforced by a glance at the aforesaid leaflet (freely available on the internet). It originated during another loud „action” campaign organized in Poland in 2003 , a country that owing to the absence of any sizeable Islamic or racial minorities to be protected must cause particular headache to „United”. I assume that if Poland has no racial and religious problems, then „United” will no doubt see to it that they are created soon. „United” lives off such problems, doesn’t it? The leaflet comprises 6 short chapters which form a programme of how to make history work for what the „United” activists and their EU sponsors find convenient to serve the greater EU project. We learn at first that there are bad „traditional past-oriented societies” and those good modern ones who don’t care much about the past. The EU is of course the paragon of future-oriented ultra-modern society. The author finds that those past-oriented things don’t count in the EU superstate, then those nasty past things are in people’s minds and changing people’s perceptions will solve problems „deeply-rooted in the past” , won’t it? If we just know nothing about the real nature of the past conflicts –as we are inevitably to do due to the EU guidelines- , we would live in a better peaceful world. Or as the author put it : „School education provides the majority of the population with historical information for the whole of their life. That is why history teaching, first of all, must contribute to tolerance and open-minded approach to conflicting opinions. However, today approximately 70 per cent of information in history textbooks is related to wars, conquests and other destructive events.” The important word here is „information”. It is not that historical realities we are talking about. Who shall bother about those realities, anyway? The EU history bosses? They make the past in their own image. They just change the proportions of information available to the youth and the past will make EU-paid anti-racism activists happy at last! Nowhere in this history EU-sponsored manifesto there are words like „truth”, „reality”. They are replaced with „opinions”, „negative stereotypes”, „stories”, „words”. This is an intentional strategeme, of course , as the author is not going to search the historical truth . The EU doesn’t need any truth and as its ideology works best disconnected from such „past-oriented” notions and correspondingly is not willing to pay for it. In short, new EU-friendly myths should replace inconvenient facts and truths. This methodological nihilism is openly stated in chapter 1 („What does history mean for mankind”) „Of course it is possible to get out of one's own past, re-write one's history” . In what follows the author shows us how to do that piece of magic to get out of our past to bask in the bright never-ending EU morning sunshine. The choice of historical examples is –as expected- scarce and shallow. No analysis of the problems is attempted. Slogans and generalities are willingly quoted. History documented by archaeology and millenia-old literary sources is played down as „ historical revisionism” while obscure „minority” groups with no literary history and dubious institutions and records are to be given a privileged treatment as „the first political requirement for history manuals is giving a fair representation of domestic minorities, as well as of the neighbouring nations and countries.” Accordingly, plenty of space has been occupied by what in the EU newspeak is called „hate speech” – this „centre of attention of many human rights and minority rights groups”. The sin of „hate speech” is however easily eradicated through acquired and regularly practised self-censorship benignly denoted as „a strong feeling of social responsibility”. So e.g. we learn that in the case of the Muslim-Christian Kosovo conflict we can speak of over a hundred years of mutual psychological misunderstanding” , i.e. „hate-speech” syndrome. In case of the Mongolian invasions again the hereto historiography is wrong. „The relevant texts

are emotionally coloured and contain a powerful negative charge.” Why? Probably because the Russian historians have not been describing peaceful Mongolians on their traditional kebab-eating outings aorund A.D. 1240. Again much criticism is applied against „historical national myths” „imagined communities”, „negative stereotypes” (by the way, „positive stereotypes” are never mentioned, yet implicitly accepted as ‘true’) that „have deep roots and are widely spread”. But the author has a quick solution to the whole century-old problem. She suggests replacing those bad stereotypes with what is phrased „truly international heroic figures”. But what if it turns out that too many of these „truly international heroes” belong to few nations while her beloved minorities can’t boast of a single one „truly international hero”? Well, the latter fact can be reduced to being just a new „negative stereotype” and replaced with a positive stereotype. As the end hollows the means, so historical moralism serves just a major cause of „initiating a dialogue” to spread „positive stereotypes” and good feelings. And it is also a potent weapon against „a whole generation of people and journalists (...) formed under the influence of long standing stereotypes. Personal views of these people return to the society through their articles.” It seems that the author attributes to her imagined adversaries the crime that she and her powerful sponsors commit themselves. Their „positive use of history in the field of overcoming stereotypes and creating good attitudes to other nations in people's minds” is nothing more than replacing inconvenient opinions and views with other, more insidious and totally unverifiable or simply false ones. One example of how she distorts things to please her sponsors is what she writes about the project „History without conquered and conquerors” referring to the Turkish rule in Moldavia. „The goal of the project is on the basis of modern scientific research, cultural and popular scientific activities to create a reconciled image of Moldovan-Turkish relations as the foundation for the mutual understanding in present and future.” Indeed, it is only this „modern scientific research” that can make us forget the historically documented rule of shari’a, kidnappings of children for service in the janissary corps, lawlessness, insecurity, ruthless Turkish exploitation on the Balkans. Now chapter 5 of her EU-sponsored manifesto is the most fascinating one : „Recommendations for history teaching : History without Propaganda!” The title sounds so promising, doesn’t it? Here we learn that as early as in the 1950-ies the wise Council of Europe interfered in and heavily centralised history education and history curricula in the name of higher morality ( or in the newspeak of the age „overcoming xenophobia, historical prejudices, nationalism, and chauvinism”). Today’s EU has just inherited and continues the old routine of deteriming what and how the youth should learn about what happened since „it considerably determines the destiny of peoples and states as well as the possibility of integration processes in Europe.” Indeed, the stark historical truth could not contribute much to the EU credibility or justify its self-proclaimed moral and intellectual superiority and expose its catchy slogan „ history without propaganda, history without prejudices, and history based only on real facts” as shoddy propaganda , prejudice and invention as e.g. the above case of appeasing the Turks in Moldavia shows. An indirect result of all those machinations and EU self-glorifying moralism was „Recommendation No R (2001) 15” of the Committee of European Ministers where it warned against „misuse of history”, i.e. using history to show how the EU has misused it for its obscure agenda. A number of brainwashing techniques have been introduced in the EU to make people blind to the hidden EU schemes and to prevent any critical historical thinking with sad implications for the EU moral aspirations. So forgetting the essential things in the past, inventing a bright peaceful past or „ appreciation of the positive factor: peace-loving and wise ancestors from whom we inherited monuments of civilization.” „We” means here the EU bosses. In such a nice past the only villains were of course those who didn’t follow the wise guidelines valid later in the EU and spread through

its innumerable sponsored chain dogs from „human rights” and „anti-racism” and other groups. Just in case there are still some history teachers who will try to develop the basics of critical thinking among their students the bright EU-sponsored author took precautions. The unreliable teachers will be purged on ethical grounds since „creation of the ethical code for specialists-historians” will make any criticism of the EU impossible. Another means to purge inconvenient teaching personnel would be under the pretext „to raise qualification and skills of historians”. Simply those who will refuse to parrot the newspeak will fail exams get no teaching jobs. And the historical eschatology which is implied in this moralizing approach to history is simple enough to be understood by the uncritical youth. The past leads metaphysically to the great EU which follows necessarily from this past. Its legitimacy is assured, its future bright. „Death to the past! Long live the EU!” It should not be overlooked that teaching history needs to be primarily oriented to European human rights aspect: 1) Teaching all the aspects of history (culture, economics, politics, religion); 2) Combining transnational, national and regional levels; 3) Interdisciplinary teaching; 4) Emphasizing the importance of cooperation rather than conflict; 5) Stressing a common basis; 6) Organizing field trips; 7) Focusing on the humanitarian aspect of history, i.e. - showing a positive approach towards human rights; - teaching not only facts, as there is no absolute objectivity of approach; - teaching history through a more "personal" approach (stories of victims, etc.); - presenting the "other sides" as well. Why not supplement, for example, the course of the history of Kazakhstan, by the history of the peoples of Central Asia, history of the states in the East and special courses on archeology, history of geography, history of culture of the peoples of the country, etc.? corroborated by the School education provides the majority of the population with historical information for the whole of their life. That is why history teaching, first of all, must contribute to tolerance and open-minded approach to conflicting opinions. However, today approximately 70 per cent of information in history textbooks is related to wars, conquests and other destructive events.

Recently I have come across a curious document called „History Interpretation as a Cause of Conflicts in Europe” „Thematic Leaflet No. 01”. It has been issued by an organization called „UNITED for Intercultural Action European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of migrants and refugees” with its seat in Amsterdam,

Netherlands”. It boasts of being „the biggest anti-racism network” set up in 1992. The author of the leaflet is Natalia Sineaeva, a Youth Helsinki Citizens' Assembly member. „United” seems to be a bulky yet unified organization with plenty of departments, branches. More than 2000 organisations. It cooperates with 2200 groups all over Europe. It has a legion of suppporters (560) and an unspecified number of sponsors and takes pride in its ‘interculturalism’, ‘respect’, ‘awareness’ and a few other catchy slogans. But what it particularly stresses is its „independence” from its various sponsors. We learn that „ „United” is and will remain independent from all political parties, organisations or states (...)That is why financial contributions are sought from a wide range of supporting organisations, foundations, individuals, national ministries, the Council of Europe and the Commission of the EU”. To prove how independent „Untied” is it tells us that what it writes „does not necessarily reflect the position nor the opinion of our sponsors. Sponsors are not to be held responsible for any use that may be made of it.” Curiously enough, „Untied” admits that it takes money from whoever gives tit and still it never rewards the sponsor! Who could believe that? If this is the case, then „United” is the first ever organisation that is independent of those who heavily subsidize it. And it is quite instructive to take a look at the long list of the unselfish sponsors of „United”. The EU Youth funds pay the costs involved in running the „United” webpage. European Commission (General Budget/Socrates/Youth Programme/DG Employment Social Affairs) is the major sponsor next to the Home Office UK , Ministry of Interior-BZK NL , Ministry of Foreign Affairs-BUZA NL, National Integration Office Sweden, Service Nationale de la Jeunesse Luxembourg, LNU - Norwegian Youth Council, Social Insurance Office , Federal Service for Combating Racism - Fund for Projects Against Racism CH ...and many, many others. In fact a whole army of „organisations, foundations, individuals, national ministries” to be independent of. But still we mustn’t think that „United” – to use an older flowery leftist terminology- are „chaindogs” or „lackeys” of their numerous paymasters, need we ? One little suspicion arises somehow when we observe that „United” somehow lacks independent scientists, scholars and historians with solid background. What we have instead are „history teachers” and „anti-racism activists”. Poor diversity among such a diversified organisation, isn’t it? And this suspision is reinforced by a glance at the aforesaid leaflet (freely available on the internet). It originated during another loud „action” campaign organized in Poland in 2003 , a country that owing to the absence of any sizeable Islamic or racial minorities to be protected must cause particular headache to „United”. I assume that if Poland has no racial and religious problems, then „United” will no doubt see to it that they are created soon. „United” lives off such problems, doesn’t it? The leaflet comprises 6 short chapters which form a programme of how to make history work for what the „United” activists and their EU sponsors find convenient to serve the greater EU project. We learn at first that there are bad „traditional past-oriented societies” and those good modern ones who don’t care much about the past. The EU is of course the paragon of future-oriented ultra-modern society. The author finds that those past-oriented things don’t count in the EU superstate, then those nasty past things are in people’s minds and changing people’s perceptions will solve problems „deeply-rooted in the past” , won’t it? If we just know nothing about the real nature of the past conflicts –as we are inevitably to do due to the EU guidelines- , we would live in a better peaceful world. Or as the author put it : „School education provides the majority of the population with historical information for the whole of their life. That is why history teaching, first of all, must contribute to tolerance and open-minded approach to conflicting opinions. However, today approximately 70 per cent of information in history textbooks is related to wars, conquests and other destructive events.”

The important word here is „information”. It is not that historical realities we are talking about. Who shall bother about those realities, anyway? The EU history bosses? They make the past in their own image. They just change the proportions of information available to the youth and the past will make EU-paid anti-racism activists happy at last! Nowhere in this history EU-sponsored manifesto there are words like „truth”, „reality”. They are replaced with „opinions”, „negative stereotypes”, „stories”, „words”. This is an intentional strategeme, of course , as the author is not going to search the historical truth . The EU doesn’t need any truth and as its ideology works best disconnected from such „past-oriented” notions and correspondingly is not willing to pay for it. In short, new EU-friendly myths should replace inconvenient facts and truths. This methodological nihilism is openly stated in chapter 1 („What does history mean for mankind”) „Of course it is possible to get out of one's own past, re-write one's history” . In what follows the author shows us how to do that piece of magic to get out of our past to bask in the bright never-ending EU morning sunshine. The choice of historical examples is –as expected- scarce and shallow. No analysis of the problems is attempted. Slogans and generalities are willingly quoted. History documented by archaeology and millenia-old literary sources is played down as „ historical revisionism” while obscure „minority” groups with no literary history and dubious institutions and records are to be given a privileged treatment as „the first political requirement for history manuals is giving a fair representation of domestic minorities, as well as of the neighbouring nations and countries.” Accordingly, plenty of space has been occupied by what in the EU newspeak is called „hate speech” – this „centre of attention of many human rights and minority rights groups”. The sin of „hate speech” is however easily eradicated through acquired and regularly practised self-censorship benignly denoted as „a strong feeling of social responsibility”. So e.g. we learn that in the case of the Muslim-Christian Kosovo conflict we can speak of over a hundred years of mutual psychological misunderstanding” , i.e. „hate-speech” syndrome. In case of the Mongolian invasions again the hereto historiography is wrong. „The relevant texts are emotionally coloured and contain a powerful negative charge.” Why? Probably because the Russian historians have not been describing peaceful Mongolians on their traditional kebab-eating outings aorund A.D. 1240. Again much criticism is applied against „historical national myths” „imagined communities”, „negative stereotypes” (by the way, „positive stereotypes” are never mentioned, yet implicitly accepted as ‘true’) that „have deep roots and are widely spread”. But the author has a quick solution to the whole century-old problem. She suggests replacing those bad stereotypes with what is phrased „truly international heroic figures”. But what if it turns out that too many of these „truly international heroes” belong to few nations while her beloved minorities can’t boast of a single one „truly international hero”? Well, the latter fact can be reduced to being just a new „negative stereotype” and replaced with a positive stereotype. As the end hollows the means, so historical moralism serves just a major cause of „initiating a dialogue” to spread „positive stereotypes” and good feelings. And it is also a potent weapon against „a whole generation of people and journalists (...) formed under the influence of long standing stereotypes. Personal views of these people return to the society through their articles.” It seems that the author attributes to her imagined adversaries the crime that she and her powerful sponsors commit themselves. Their „positive use of history in the field of overcoming stereotypes and creating good attitudes to other nations in people's minds” is nothing more than replacing inconvenient opinions and views with other, more insidious and totally unverifiable or simply false ones. One example of how she distorts things to please her sponsors is what she writes about the project „History without conquered and conquerors” referring to the Turkish rule in Moldavia. „The goal of the project is on the basis

of modern scientific research, cultural and popular scientific activities to create a reconciled image of Moldovan-Turkish relations as the foundation for the mutual understanding in present and future.” Indeed, it is only this „modern scientific research” that can make us forget the historically documented rule of shari’a, kidnappings of children for service in the janissary corps, lawlessness, insecurity, ruthless Turkish exploitation on the Balkans. Now chapter 5 of her EU-sponsored manifesto is the most fascinating one : „Recommendations for history teaching : History without Propaganda!” The title sounds so promising, doesn’t it? Here we learn that as early as in the 1950-ies the wise Council of Europe interfered in and heavily centralised history education and history curricula in the name of higher morality ( or in the newspeak of the age „overcoming xenophobia, historical prejudices, nationalism, and chauvinism”). Today’s EU has just inherited and continues the old routine of deteriming what and how the youth should learn about what happened since „it considerably determines the destiny of peoples and states as well as the possibility of integration processes in Europe.” Indeed, the stark historical truth could not contribute much to the EU credibility or justify its self-proclaimed moral and intellectual superiority and expose its catchy slogan „ history without propaganda, history without prejudices, and history based only on real facts” as shoddy propaganda , prejudice and invention as e.g. the above case of appeasing the Turks in Moldavia shows. An indirect result of all those machinations and EU self-glorifying moralism was „Recommendation No R (2001) 15” of the Committee of European Ministers where it warned against „misuse of history”, i.e. using history to show how the EU has misused it for its obscure agenda. A number of brainwashing techniques have been introduced in the EU to make people blind to the hidden EU schemes and to prevent any critical historical thinking with sad implications for the EU moral aspirations. So forgetting the essential things in the past, inventing a bright peaceful past or „ appreciation of the positive factor: peace-loving and wise ancestors from whom we inherited monuments of civilization.” „We” means here the EU bosses. In such a nice past the only villains were of course those who didn’t follow the wise guidelines valid later in the EU and spread through its innumerable sponsored chain dogs from „human rights” and „anti-racism” and other groups. Just in case there are still some history teachers who will try to develop the basics of critical thinking among their students the bright EU-sponsored author took precautions. The unreliable teachers will be purged on ethical grounds since „creation of the ethical code for specialists-historians” will make any criticism of the EU impossible. Another means to purge inconvenient teaching personnel would be under the pretext „to raise qualification and skills of historians”. Simply those who will refuse to parrot the newspeak will fail exams get no teaching jobs. And the historical eschatology which is implied in this moralizing approach to history is simple enough to be understood by the uncritical youth. The past leads metaphysically to the great EU which follows necessarily from this past. Its legitimacy is assured, its future bright. „Death to the past! Long live the EU!”