Last week, the Prime Minister of Malta joined a number of European politicians, amongst whom the former Italian Prime Minister, Renzi, and the leader of the Liberal group in the European Parliament, ALDE chief Guy Verhofstadt and Christophe Castaner, who is the leader of Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche movement, to denounce what they perceived as the populist threat. They stated that Europe risks returning to the 1930s. Unfortunately, this declaration came from European politicians, who either have lost  elections, like Renzi or else their party is doing badly in the polls as is the case of La République En Marche. Muscat is the only head of state to have put his name to this ‘opinion letter’, as Macron, for unknown reasons, did not add his signature. Instead, signing was delegated to Castaner.  I consider this a clear sign that Macron considers it demeaning to put his name next to the signature of the Prime Minister of a small state. This is why he asked Christophe Castaner to do so instead.  

As only too often happens with losers, they seek to rope in a number of self-proclaimed European intellectuals to give credibility to their cause. In Maltese, we say, to serve as a ‘forcina’. These intellectuals are the same who in the past suggested ostracizing scholars who refused to join the liberal cause and progressive thoughts. They agreed with these politicians that we are facing a historical repeat.

If one looks at this account from a marketing point of view, one has to admit that our Prime Minister has indeed increased his personal and political profile in Europe. He is appearing with the big names of Western European politicians and he is in the opposite page to the editorial of some the major Western European newspapers as The Times, The Guardian, El País and Libération. Therefore, for our Prime Minister, this may appear as a success story. It will definitely help him achieve his ambition of a high post in Europe. On a local front, this story will continue to weaken the local Nationalist Opposition, as one of its factions shares Muscat’s same views  on these matters. Simon Busuttil wanted to turn the Nationalist Party into a Liberal Party. He ostracized those intellectuals who refused to accept these thoughts and side-lined those of Catholic faith. Muscat has succeeded where Simon Busuttil has failed.

But if one looks at the content of this article, one has to state that it will not achieve its desired goal for the simpler reason that the content does not make academic sense. In fact, on the contrary, it highlights and expresses the ideological confusion that reigns in the current European liberal block. This is why, this article will fail to convince people. As academic, I am mostly concerned with the confusion that these European politicians and intellectuals are expressing. Their op-ed will not aid their cause in winning votes in the forthcoming EU elections in May. Nor will it help the cause of democracy. Instead, it will create more confusion as their ideas do not hold water. It is the liberal ideas and ideals that led Europe to this current state of confusion. This is why I fight liberalism with all means.

Some weeks ago, I referred to the British historian, E. H. Carr and his book What is History? Carr was an ardent supporter of Locke and his theories. In my blog about history and gay ideology, I explained why Locke is considered the father of modern liberalism and civil liberties. It should be noted here that the father of liberalism did not believe in the notion that history can repeat itself. Hence, that same philosopher, taken by modern liberals as their mentor, is telling them that what they are stating in this letter is blatantly false. I wish to point out here that I am not denying that history can repeat itself but only stating that the father of liberalism did not accept such a premise.

To be fair, Locke did not speak about this fact directly. What Locke stated and on which he based his whole philosophical argument is that men (and women) are born with a blank slate. The words used by Locke were in Latin; tabula rasa. By so reasoning, Locke was attacking the dominant philosophy of his time, which is known by ‘innatism’. This philosophy was embraced by the French Philosopher René Descartes and went back to Plato. What these philosophers thought was that baby was not born with a clean slate but had innate ideas and knowledge. They argued that this preconceived knowledge was given by a superior power, that is God. Those who used to go to Catholic Catechism classes before the 1980s, in Malta, were taught about this state of innatism. Catholic teaching was based on it. The catechists used to speak about the presence of a conscience in our being and that conscience or the awareness of what is good or bad, was born with us. Now, the philosopher who came out with the idea that history can repeat itself, that is the Italian Gian Battista Vico embraced these innate theories of Plato and Descartes.

Locke’s philosophy of liberalism replaced this philosophy of innatism and with it, the idea that history can repeat itself. As a true follower of Locke, Carr attacks this element of determinism in history. He explains that history cannot repeat itself. What is interesting here is that we have scholars (I will ignore the politicians because they change position according to their electoral requirements) who want to be sons and the followers of Locke and at the same time pen a letter based purely on anti-Locke precepts. In fact, they based their arguments on innatism, which were the arguments that conservatives and Catholics used to make to advance their positions.

Now, we have politicians and European intellectuals, who are with Locke, but when it suits their objectives, are more than ready to return back to Descartes, Plato and Vico’s theories of history. This is happening whenever their Lockian precepts of civil liberties put them with their backs against the wall. These are the same politicians and intellectuals, who used to state that there is no place for religion and God in history. Now, they are embracing the religious argument that history can repeat itself in order to justify their historical and political existence. One cannot believe that history can repeat itself without believing in the existence of a superior Being. There needs to be an innate prime mover for history to repeat itself. Without this prime mover, such a repetition cannot occur. This historical and political confusion is being achieved by having these politicians and intellectuals embracing Marxist relativism.

But why are the arguments of these Liberals based on Marxist precepts of relativism? It is only through the use of relativism that the Liberals can come to make such comparisons with the 1930s. For historians of the calibre of Carr, their arguments do not hold water historically. In the 1930s, Nazi Germany got united with Fascist Italy. What is not said is that Winston Churchill wanted Mussolini on the side of Britain and in return, he offered Malta to Italy. Carr would point out these inconsistencies. He would have argued that the situation today is not the same because Italy is at loggerheads with Germany. Then, Merkel’s Germany is in unity with Macron’s France. In WWII, these countries were enemies. Unity between Nazi Germany and France only came through Vichy. An innate thinker would state that like Petain, Macron is being dubbed an arrogant leader and a collaborator of the Germans.

What these gentlemen have forgotten is that Nazism and Fascism are movements resulting from  the unity of two opposing ideologies. Nazism was created from the union of Socialism and Nationalism. In Italy, Mussolini, a Socialist and a declared atheist, joined the Arditi, who were the Nationalists. If one agrees that the unity of two opposing ideologies leads to dictatorship, then Nationalism and Populism are the true savers of Europe. They are the political forces opposing the rise of a new and dangerous ideology. Is not the article in question, the product of the unity of Socialism and Liberalism? This op-ed is proof of a unity of two opposing ideologies. It is such types of unities that produce despicable situations in history. This is not an issue of history repeating itself but of bad policies being repeated in history. When this happens, political catastrophe is bound to follow. This is what is happening today in Europe. Two opposing ideologies, socialism and liberalism, are becoming one. We must thank our lucky stars that we have populism and nationalism. If one should start to believe in innatism, as these European politicians are re-proposing, then one should expect the return of the Dio Latino or Latin God. What is even more important is the fact that the forces of Nationalism and Populism have the power of stopping this new modern dictatorship of relativism which, is being pushed forward under the guise of democracy by this new perverse alliance between the Socialists and the Liberals.