歐洲保守派知識分子巴黎發表聲明《一個我們能夠信靠的歐洲》
澎湃新聞10月9日消息，歐洲十位保守主義知識分子在10月7日以九種語言同時發佈一份聯署聲明《一個我們能夠信靠的歐洲》。
華東師範大學世界政治研究中心 譯
【譯者按】2017年10月7日，歐洲十位保守主義傾向的學者和知識分子，以九種語言同時發佈一份聯署聲明（https://thetrueeurope.eu/），**表達了他們對目前歐洲危機的看法，以及對歐洲未來的原則性構想。**這份聲明是否能如簽署者所願對歐洲公共討論產生影響，目前還不得而知。我們翻譯這一文本，旨在提供當前歐洲思想界一種相對邊緣的立場和觀點。這種聲音的出現，及其或沉寂或喧譁的後續效應，都會折射歐洲思想與政治的複雜局面與前景，也是對學院派的保守主義思想是否對歐洲政治仍具影響潛力的某種檢測。（華東師範大學世界政治研究中心）。
2017年5月，一羣保守派學者和知識分子在巴黎聚談，他們因為對歐洲政治、文化和社會時局——尤其是對歐洲精神與想象的共同關切而走到一起。在幻相、自欺與意識形態扭曲中，歐洲正在把自身的文明遺產揮霍殆盡。
這場聚談並非碌碌無為的哀嘆，也無意於在汗牛充棟的“西方沒落”文獻庫中增添另一部書卷，與會者們相信以公開方式發表一篇正式聲明的意義更為重大。他們表達了對“真正的歐洲”（the true Europe）的擁護，並且認為這一做法可以被所有人予以理性認可。在完成這項行動中，首先要做的是對“真正的歐洲”提供一份解説，它被掩蓋在我們時代的各色時髦的抽象中。
聚談的最後成果就是這篇《一個我們能夠信靠的歐洲》。這份《巴黎聲明》呼籲人們重新理解並激賞歐洲真正的個性。同時，它也意在邀請歐洲民眾積極打撈我們歐洲傳統中的最好遺產，共同建構一個充滿安寧、朝氣和高貴的未來。
請藉由這份宣言與我們握手。
2017年10月7日
巴黎聲明《一個我們能夠信靠的歐洲》
簽署人
Phillipe Bénéton (France)
法國著名政治理論家，生於1946年，供職於雷恩大學和天主教高等研究院，講授馬基雅維利、托馬斯·莫爾、伊拉斯謨等經典作家，最新著作《西方道德的敗壞》（Le dérèglement moral de l’Occident，2017）。
Rémi Brague (France)
法國哲學史家、隨筆作家，生於1947年，精通古希臘哲學和中世紀阿拉伯、猶太與基督教思想史，供職索邦，並曾兼任慕尼黑大學哲學系主任，法蘭西學院（Institut de France）院士，著述豐厚，最新作品《人的統治：現代方案的起源與挫敗》（Le Règne de l’homme: Genèse et échec du projet moderne, 2015）。
Chantal Delsol (France)
法國哲學家、政治史家、小説家，生於1947年，隸屬馬克斯·韋伯學脈，供職馬恩—拉瓦雷大學，“漢娜·阿倫特研究院”（1993）創辦人，著述豐厚，服膺“聯邦制”，認為這一制度植根於天主教秩序與日耳曼民族的巴洛克文化母體中，代表作《民粹主義：對不可辯護者的辯護》（Populismos: Una Defensa De Lo Indefendible, 2013）、《不正義的正義：駁國際法的暴政》（Unjust Justice: Against the Tyranny of International Law, 2008）。
Roman Joch (Česko)
捷克著名保守派政治家和政治理論家，布拉格智庫“公民研究院”（Občanský institut）執行主任，生於1971年，在政治哲學、國際關係與國家安全領域發表眾多著作，曾供職捷克外交部的學術諮詢委員會（2006）、副總理Alexandr Vondra的政策助理（2009）、總理Petr Nečas 的人權與外交政策助理（2010-2012）。
Lánczi András (Magyarország)
匈牙利政治哲學家，生於1956年，供職考文紐斯大學（Corvinus University, Budapest），擔任該校政治科學與哲學研究所主任，著作論題涉及政治智識、命運-遺產、列奧·施特勞斯思想中的傳統與現代性等，在復興匈牙利與歐洲保守政治思想方面，他貢獻甚巨。
Ryszard Legutko (Polska)
波蘭哲學家與政治家，生於1949年，傑格隆尼大學（Jagellonian University）古代哲學與政治理論教授，精研柏拉圖對話，著述豐厚，最新作品《民主中的惡魔：自由社會中的極權主義誘惑》（The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies，2016），波蘭政治哲學研究中心創辦人，曾入選波蘭參議院（2005），出任波蘭教育部長（2007），國務卿（Secretary of State，2007-2009），歐洲議會成員，波蘭“無形學院”（Collegium Invisibile）院士。
Sir Roger Scruton (United Kingdom)
英國著名政治哲學家、作家，生於1944年，著名保守學刊The Salisbury Review主編，著述等身，代表作《保守主義的意義》（1980），於1998年被哈維爾總統授予捷克共和國最高榮譽勳章，2016年，受封騎士，表彰其在哲學與公共教育領域的傑出貢獻，現執教於牛津大學、劍橋大學與聖安德魯斯大學。
Robert Spaemann (Deutschland)
羅馬天主教哲學家，生於1927年，“裏特爾學派”（Ritter School）成員，精研基督教倫理，在生物倫理、環保與人權領域建樹頗豐，深受教宗本篤十六世肯認，最新作品《盧梭：人與公民，現代人的悖境》（Rousseau – Mensch oder Bürger. Das Dilemma der Moderne，2008）。
Bart Jan Spruyt (Nederland)
荷蘭歷史學家、記者、作家、保守主義思想領袖，生於1964年，早年研習神學、歷史與法學，現供職鹿特丹自由大學，講授教會史，“埃德蒙·伯克基金會”創始人，反對歐洲憲法，2006年曾撰寫“保衞西方：新保守主義與對新丘吉爾的持續需求”。
Matthias Storme (België)
比利時著名律師、學者與保守派哲學家，生於1959年，其家世傳承在政治與學術領域擁有顯赫記錄，現供職魯汶大學。
聲明正文
1. 歐洲是我們的家園。歐洲屬於我們，我們也屬於歐洲。這片土地是我們的家園；這是我們唯一的家園。我們摯愛歐洲，這無須解釋，我們對歐洲的忠誠亦毋庸辯護。它關乎我們共同的歷史、希望和愛；關乎我們習慣的生活方式以及那些悲愴和痛苦的時刻；也關乎那些激動人心的和解經驗，以及一份對於美好未來的承諾。普通的風景和事件灌注着特殊的意義——它屬於我們，與別人無關。無論我們經歷過多少的流浪，家是一個讓人感到親切，讓我們感到被認可的地方。這就是真實的歐洲，我們的珍寶，無可替代。
2. 一個虛假的歐洲正在威脅着我們。歐洲的豐饒和偉大正在因為它對於自身的誤解而受到威脅。這個虛假的歐洲把自己想象成我們文明的完成形態，但實際上將毀掉我們的家園。它企圖誇大和扭曲歐洲真實的美德卻對自身的惡習視而不見。它沾沾自喜地換取了歷史的片面縮影，針對我們的過去展開不可一世的攻擊。它的支持者們自願成為無家可歸的棄兒，並且他們以此為高尚之舉。通過這種方式，虛假的歐洲把自己歌頌為一個普世共同體的先驅，但事實上，它既談不上普世，更稱不上是一個共同體。
3. 虛假的歐洲是虛幻的和專橫的。虛假歐洲的支持者受惑於一種對進步的必然性的迷信。他們相信歷史站在他們一邊，這種信念使其變得傲慢和輕蔑，也沒有能力去承認他們正在建構的所謂“後民族”、“後文化”的世界存在着各種缺陷。更有甚者，對於他們和我們共同珍視的體面人性的根源，他們無從知曉。他們無視甚至攻擊歐洲的基督教根基。同時他們花費巨大精力去防止對穆斯林的冒犯。他們妄想穆斯林將會愉快地採納他們的世俗主義與文化多元圖景。這個虛假的歐洲在偏見、迷信和無知中沉陷，被虛榮和自鳴得意的烏托邦幻景刺瞎了雙目，並且反過來扼殺對它的任何異議。當然，所有這一切都是以自由和寬容為名。
4. 我們必須捍衞真實的歐洲。我們正在接近一條死衚衕。對於歐洲未來的威脅既非俄羅斯的冒進，亦非穆斯林移民。真實的歐洲正處在危險之中，是因為虛假的歐洲正在以令人窒息的權力扼殺我們的想象力。對歐洲是什麼以及應該是什麼的幻想和自我欺騙，正在掏空歐洲各族及其共同文化。我們誓言抵抗這種危及歐洲未來的威脅。我們將守護、維持並捍衞真實的歐洲，那個我們真正以身相許的歐洲。
5. 團結一致和公民忠誠鼓舞着我們積極參與。真實的歐洲期待和鼓勵積極參與共同的政治和文化生活。歐洲的理想是團結一致，它基於對一種法律體系的同意，該體系審慎節制，適用於所有歐洲民族。然而，這種同意並不總是以代議制民主的形式來實現，在更為根本的層面，公民忠誠傳統反映着我們對自身政治與文化傳統的根深蒂固的同意，不管它採取何種形式。在過去，歐洲人努力使我們的政治體系變得更向普羅大眾開放，而且我們也公正地以這段歷史為榮。他們在這種行動過程中，甚至在公開的反叛中，依然熱情地肯定這塊大陸屬於我們歐洲人，即使他們的事業染指不義，甚或一敗塗地。獻身變革使得歐洲成為一塊尋求更高正義的地方。這種進步精神產生於我們對家園的熱愛和忠誠。
6. 我們不是被動的屈服者。歐洲統一的精神讓我們能夠在公共廣場上信任彼此，即便我們是陌生人。歐洲鄉鎮和城市中的公園、中央廣場以及寬廣的林蔭大道展現了歐洲政治的精神：我們分享着共同的生活和共同的事務（res publica）。我們自認為有義務承擔起對於我們社會未來的責任。我們不是權力統治下的消極服從者，不管它是世俗的還是神聖的。專橫的歷史暴力也不會令我們屈服。成為歐洲人意味着擁有政治和歷史的能動性。我們是自身共同命運的書寫者。
7. 民族國家是歐洲的標誌。真實的歐洲是歐洲各國族的共同體。我們擁有各自的語言、傳統和邊界，但我們仍然承認相互間的親緣關係，即使在我們身陷分歧甚至戰爭。這種多元一體（unity-in-diversity）看起來像是歐洲的自然格局，但實際上，它既不是自然的，也並非必然的，這一點使得它既非凡特異，又彌足珍貴。“多元一體”最常見的政治形式是帝國，在羅馬帝國衰落之後的數個世紀裏，這一形態被歐洲的武士君主們不斷地重造。帝國形態的誘惑始終存在着，但民族國家取得了最後勝利，這一政治形式致力於把民族性和主權聯結在一起。民族國家因此成為了歐洲文明的標誌。
8. 我們不為強加於人的強制統一而站台。民族共同以自我統治為榮耀，它常常炫耀自身在藝術和科學領域的民族成就，並與其他國族展開競爭，包括角逐沙場。這些活動傷害了歐洲，有時甚至非常嚴重，但歐洲文化的統一性從來沒有因此受到傷害。事實上，情況正好相反。隨着歐洲各民族國家漸趨鞏固並凸顯其獨特性，一個共同的歐洲認同變得更為強大。二十世紀上半葉，在經歷兩次世界大戰的可怕殺戮之後，我們以更強大的決心去光耀我們共同的遺產。這確證了作為一種正當意義上的世界級文明的歐洲的深度和力量。我們並不謀求帝國式的強加於人的大一統。相反，歐洲的世界主義認為，對國家的熱愛和公民的忠誠可以擴展到一個更廣闊的世界。
9. 基督教促進了文化的統一。真實的歐洲曾經以基督教為標記。基督教會普世的精神帝國在沒有援引政治帝國的協助下，為歐洲提供了文化上的統一性。這一點使得一種特殊的公民忠誠得以在共同的歐洲文化中生長壯大。那種被我們稱為公民社會的獨立自主成為歐洲生活方式的標誌性特徵。此外，基督教福音書並沒有發佈一種統一性的神聖律法，因此，多樣化的歐洲各國內部的世俗法律得到承認和尊崇的同時，我們歐洲的統一也並沒有受到損害。並不意外的是，隨着歐洲基督教信仰的衰落伴隨而來的是建構政治統一的重新嘗試——一個金錢和律法的帝國，其中覆蓋着一層偽宗教的普世主義濫情，這就是歐盟正在營建的東西。
10. 基督教根基滋養着歐洲。真正的歐洲肯定每一個個體的平等尊嚴，無論性別、等級或是種族。這也是從我們基督教的根基中生長出來的。我們的紳士德性是一項明確無誤的基督教遺產：公正、憐憫、仁慈、寬容、和解、仁愛。基督教徹底變革了男女間的關係、珍視愛情以及以前所未有的方式保持相互的忠誠。婚姻的紐帶讓男人和女人都能在交流中共同成長。我們所作的大部分犧牲都是為了我們的伴侶和孩子。這種自我奉獻的精神也是另一項由基督教獻給我們所鍾愛的歐洲的遺產。
11. 古典的根基鼓舞着卓越的德性。真實的歐洲同樣也在古典的傳統中獲得靈感。我們通過古希臘和羅馬的文學作品來認識我們自己。作為歐洲人，我們努力成就偉大，這是古典德性中的王冠。在很多時候，這引發了為獲取霸權而展開的暴力競逐，但在其最好的狀態下，它啓發了歐洲的男女為追求卓越而在音樂和藝術工作中造就無與倫比的美，同時也在科學和技術領域成就了眾多非凡突破。在真實的歐洲，節制鎮定的羅馬人的嚴肅德性、公民參與的榮耀以及希臘人的哲學探究從沒有被遺忘。這些遺產同樣也是我們的。
12. 歐洲是一項共同的事業。真實的歐洲從來都不是完美的。虛假歐洲的支持者們在尋求發展和改革方面沒有錯。1945年和1989年以來這兩段時間，他們在這方面取得了許多成就，這是我們應該珍視和敬重的。我們共同的生活是一項行進中的事業，而非一項僵化的遺產。歐洲的未來有賴於更新對我們最佳傳統的忠誠，而不是在似是而非的普世主義中遺忘歷史和自暴自棄。歐洲並非起始於啓蒙運動。我們所衷愛的家園並不會以歐洲聯盟的形式終結。真實的歐洲是，而且永遠將會是一個多個國族組成的共同體，它們曾經老死不相往來，有時候甚至非常劇烈的彼此孤立，但始終被同一種精神遺產所聯結，藉此，我們歐洲人才可以在一起爭論、進步、分享以及互相關愛。
13. 我們正在失去家園。真實的歐洲到了危險的時刻。人民主權的成就、對帝國的抵制、能夠兼容公民愛慾的世界主義、基督教遺產下的人道以及有尊嚴的生活、古典傳承在現實中的參與——這些都漸行漸遠。當虛假歐洲的支持者們營建着普世人權的基督教天國贗品的時候，我們正在失去我們的家園。
14. 虛假的自由盛行於世。虛假的歐洲吹噓着一種史無前例的對於人類自由的承諾。然而，這種自由非常片面。它自我推銷，聲稱要從所有限制中謀求解放：性自由、自我表達的自由、“做自己”的自由。1968年的革命一代把這些自由視為對一種曾經神通廣大幷包含壓迫勢力的文化霸權的勝利。他們把自己看成是偉大的解放者，他們的僭越行為被稱讚為高尚的道德成就，全世界都應該為此感恩戴德。
15. 個人主義、孤獨和虛無被廣泛散播。然而，對於歐洲的年輕一代，現實表面的鍍金少得可憐。放蕩和享樂常常導致人生的倦怠和虛無感的沉陷。婚姻的紐帶變得脆弱易斷。在性自由的海潮鼓盪下，年輕人對於婚姻和建立家庭的深層渴望常常受到挫敗。一種挫敗我們內心深處渴望的自由變成了我們的詛咒。我們的社會似乎淪入個人主義、孤獨和虛無之中。我們並沒有贏得自由，相反，我們落入了消費文化和媒體文化所製造的空洞的盲從與單一中。我們有責任説出其中的真相：1968年的一代只知道摧毀，但毫無建樹。他們製造了一個真空，現在被社會媒體、廉價旅遊和色情文學所充斥。
16. 我們正在被規制、管控。有人在吹噓我們獲得了前所未有的自由，但與此同時，歐洲人的生活卻越來越廣泛地被規制。規則統治着我們的工作關係、商業決定、教育資質，以及我們的新聞與娛樂媒體。並且，當今的歐洲更試圖收緊針對言論自由的既有規則，要知道，這是一種歐洲專屬的自由，一種事關個人信仰的公開表達的自由。這些限制所針對的並非是公共生活中的淫穢話語或其他對體面之辭的攻擊。相反，歐洲的統治階級希望對公開的政治言論進行限制。關於伊斯蘭和移民問題，那些想要就“難以啓齒的真相”而發聲的政治領袖們，在法官面前怯步了。政治正確施加了強有力的禁忌，後者將那些對現狀的挑戰視為非法越界。虛假的歐洲並不真正鼓勵一種自由的文化。它提倡的乃是一種由市場所驅動的同質性文化，以及政治上強制的統一性。
17. 多元文化主義不靠譜。虛假的歐洲同樣吹噓一種對平等的前所未有的承諾。它宣稱要消除歧視、包容所有種族、宗教與身份。的確，它有了真正的進展，然而一種脱離現實的烏托邦也在歐洲身體上紮根了。在過去的那一代，歐洲曾經謀求多元文化主義的宏大規劃。——以至於連要求甚或是增進穆斯林新進移民歸化入我們歐洲的風俗習慣——更不用提我們的基督教了——這一行為都被判為粗暴的不正義。人們告訴我們，鑑於對平等地承諾，我們務必要放棄任何暗示我們的文化更加優越的信仰。矛盾的是，歐洲的多元文化主義事業儘管否認歐洲的基督教根基，卻以一種誇張得難以實現的形式冒用了基督教的普世仁愛觀念。它要求歐洲人以聖母的標準去犧牲掉自我。歐洲家園的被殖民、歐洲文化的覆滅，這就是我們必須承認的歐洲21世紀的偉大榮耀，——歐洲人的集體犧牲，換來的是某種新穎的和平與繁榮的全球共同體。
18. 敗壞的良心在滋長。在這一新思維中摻有大量敗壞的良心。毋庸置疑，我們統治階層當中的大多數都認定了歐洲文化的優越性，但它並不能在公共領域中以可能冒犯到移民們的方式得到認肯。基於那樣的優越性，他們認為同化將會自然而然地快速發生。歐洲統治階層假定，通過自然法則或歷史法則，“他們”必然會變得像“我們”一樣。——相反的軌跡則被認為是不可想象的。這是對歐洲帝國主義舊思維的富有諷刺意味的回聲。與此同時，官方的多元文化主義作為一種治療手段，被用來對付那些不幸的然而卻是“短暫”的文化衝突。
19. 技術專家的暴政在蔓延。還有更糟糕的，一種更黑暗的信念在起作用。過去的那一代，我們統治階層中越來越龐大的部分認定，其自身利益在於加速的全球化。他們希望建立各種他們能夠控制的、免於民眾主權麻煩的超國家機構。越來越清楚的是，歐盟內部的“民主赤字”絕不僅僅是一種通過技術手段可以救治的技術問題。毋寧説，這種赤字是一個根本性的承諾，並得到了積極的維護。無論是通過被假定的經濟必要性，還是自主發展起來的國際人權法而獲得正當性，歐盟機構裏的超國家官員們，剝奪了歐洲的政治生活，以一個技術性的答案來回應所有的挑戰，這個答案就是：不存在其他選擇。這是我們所面臨的柔軟卻日益真實的暴政。
20. 虛假的歐洲是脆弱和無能的。儘管其黨派勢力竭盡全力在加固種種舒適的幻象，虛假歐洲的傲慢自大如今變得昭然若揭。首先，這個虛假歐洲所暴露的虛弱超過任何人的想象。大眾娛樂與物質消費並不能支撐起公民生活。多元文化主義意識形態剝奪了更高的理想，挫傷了對愛國驕傲的表達，我們的社會如今很難召喚保衞自身的意志。其次，公民信任與社會凝聚並沒有被包容的修辭或者由巨型國際企業所主宰的非個人經濟體系所復甦。另外，我們必須坦言：歐洲的社會正在被嚴重損耗。只要睜開雙眼，我們就會看到政府權力、社會管理和教育灌輸日漸增長的使用。不僅僅是伊斯蘭的恐怖才讓全副武裝的士兵遍及我們的街道。防暴警察如今還必須用來鎮壓暴力性的反建制抗議，甚至還用來管制那些成羣醉酒的足球迷。我們足球信徒們的那種狂熱是一種絕望跡象，來自對團結的深切人性需求，一種在這個虛假歐洲未能滿足的需求。
21. 一種棄絕的文化已然生根。可嘆的是，歐洲的知識分子階層同屬於虛假歐洲自負者的首要意識形態黨派。毫無疑問，我們的大學是歐洲文明之榮耀的一部分。但是，大學這曾是努力將過去時代的智慧傳給每個新一代的地方，如今卻大多將批判性思考等同於頭腦簡單的對過去的棄絕。歐洲精神的指導方針一直是智性誠實與客觀性的嚴格訓練。然而經過最近的兩代人，這一崇高的理想已被轉變。曾經致力於讓心靈從主導意見的暴政獲得自由的苦修主義，已然變成了一種時常自鳴得意且毫無反思的敵意，這種敵意針對的是屬於我們自身的一切。這種文化棄絕的立場所起的作用是可以用一種廉價且容易的方式成為“批判的”，它在過去的這一代中不斷地在演講大廳被排練，變成了一種教義、一種教條。而加入宣講這一信條則被當作是“啓蒙”的標誌，是在精神上獲選的體現。結果，我們的大學如今成為時下文化毀滅的積極能動者。
22. 精英們傲慢地炫耀他們的德性。我們的統治階層正在推進人權的發展。他們還在為應對氣候變化而努力。他們正在規劃一個更加全球性整合的市場經濟，並協調税收政策。他們監視着推進性別平等的進步過程。他們正在為我們做這麼多的事情！那麼，他們用何種機制來佔據官職又有什麼要緊？如果歐洲民眾對他們的行政事工產生更多的懷疑又有什麼要緊？
23. 另類選擇是存在的。那種逐漸增長的懷疑完全是合理的。如今，歐洲被一種毫無目標的物質主義所支配，這種物質主義似乎無法激勵男女們去組建家庭和生養孩子。一種棄絕的文化剝奪了下一代人的身份認同感。在我們各個國家中，有些國家出現了一些地區，在那裏穆斯林過着一種非正式的自治生活，不遵循當地的法律，好像他們更像是殖民主義者而不是我們國家的同胞成員。個人主義使我們彼此隔絕。全球化改變了數百萬人的生活前景。我們的統治階層當受到挑戰時就會説，他們不過是在努力去調解不可避免的事情，去適應無法阻擋的必然之事。沒有其他可能的道路，而抵抗是不理性的。事情只能如此。那些反對者會被説成是在經受懷舊傷感，他們因此就應受道德譴責，被當作種族主義者或是法西斯主義者。隨着社會分裂與公民之間的不信任變得愈發顯著，歐洲的公共生活變得更加激憤，也更加針鋒相對，而無人知曉何處才會是個盡頭。我們絕不能再這樣繼續下去，我們需要擺脱虛假歐洲的這種暴政。
24. 我們必須抵禦假造的宗教。這項復興的事業將以神學的自我認知為開端。普世主義者以及虛假歐洲的普世化自負，暴露了這是一種假造的宗教事業，包含着強烈的教義承諾——以及革出教門。這是一種有效的麻醉劑，使歐洲作為一個政治體陷入麻痹無力。我們必須堅持，宗教渴望適存於宗教的領域，而非政治的領域，更不用説官僚行政領域。為了恢復我們政治和歷史的能動性，歐洲公共生活的再世俗化是勢在必行的。
25. 我們必須恢復真正的自由主義。這將要求我們宣佈放棄那種虛偽的語言，那種逃避責任並助長意識形態操縱的語言。談論多樣性、包容性和多元文化主義是空洞的。這種語言通常被用來將我們的失敗描述為成就。社會團結的瓦解“實際上”變成了歡迎、寬容和包容的標誌。這是一種營銷語言，一種用來遮蔽而不是闡明現實的語言。我們必須恢復對現實持久不變的尊重。語言是一種微妙的工具，當被用作棒喝之器就被貶損。我們應當成為語言之體面的庇護者。援用討伐是我們目前時刻頹廢墮落的標誌。我們切不可容忍言語的恫嚇，更不能容忍致命的威脅。我們需要保護那些通情達理的言説者，即使我們認為他們的觀點是錯誤的。歐洲的未來必須是自由的（在其最好的意義上），這意味着致力於強健的公共論辯，免受所有暴力和強制的威脅。
26. 我們需要負責任的政治家。打破這個魔咒——這個虛假歐洲及其為一個無疆世界而發動的烏托邦式的偽宗教征戰的魔咒，這意味着培養一種新型的政治才能和一種新型的政治家。一位好的政治領袖會看護一個特定民族的公共福祉。一位好的政治家會珍視我們共享的歐洲遺產以及我們各個特定民族的傳統，視其為壯麗的並激勵生命的卻又是脆弱的禮物。他不會拒絕那份遺產，也不會去冒失去這一切風險來追尋烏托邦式的夢想。這樣的領袖們渴求由他們的人民所授予的榮譽，但他們不貪求那個“國際社會”——實際上是寡頭政治的公共機構——的讚許。
27. 我們應該復興國家的統一和團結。認識到歐洲各國的特殊品格，以及它們的基督教標誌，我們不必在多元文化主義者的虛假主張面前感到迷惘。沒有同化的移民就是殖民，而這必須被拒絕。我們有正當的理由期望，那些移居我們土地的人們將自己融入我們的國家並接受我們的方式。這種期望需要由明智的政策來支持。多元文化主義的語言是從美國傳入的。但美國的移民大時代出現在20世紀初前後，這是一個經濟高速增長的時期，在一個實際上沒有福利國家的國度，還有一種移民們被期望同化的很強的國家認同感。在接納了大量移民之後，美國關閉了大門，對此後的兩代人幾乎停止移民。歐洲需要借鑑美國的這一經驗，而不是接受當代美國的意識形態。那種經驗告訴我們，工作場所是同化的強大引擎，慷慨的福利制度會阻礙同化，而謹慎的政治領導人有時會指令減少甚至大幅削減移民。我們絕不能讓一種多元文化主義的意識形態扭曲了我們的政治判斷——關於如何最好地服務於共善（the common good），這需要民族共同體具有足夠統一和團結，從而將他們的善視為共同之善。
28. 只有帝國是多元文化的。在二戰之後，西歐培育了有活力的民主國家。上世紀與本世紀之交，中歐國家恢復了它們的公民活力。這些都是歐洲最可貴的成就。但如果不處理我們各國的移民和人口變化問題，這些成就將會喪失。只有帝國才是多元文化的，而這正是歐盟將會變成的樣子——倘若我們不能使復興團結和公民統一成為一個標準，以此來評估移民政策和同化策略。
29. 一種恰當等級制滋養社會福祉。許多人錯誤地認為，只有圍繞移民問題的爭議才撼動着歐洲。事實上，這只是一個更普遍的且必須被逆轉的社會瓦解的一個維度而已。我們必須恢復社會中特定角色的尊嚴。父母、老師和教授有義務在他們的關懷下形成這種尊嚴。我們必須抵制那種對專家知識的崇拜，這種崇拜以犧牲智慧、機智和追求有教養的生活為代價。如果不堅決反對誇張的平等主義以及將智慧化約為技術知識，就不可能有歐洲的復興。我們贊同現代的政治成就。每個男人和女人都應該享有平等的投票權。基本權利必須得到保護。但是，一個健康的民主需要社會和文化的等級制來鼓勵追求卓越、對服務於公益的人們賦予榮譽。我們需要恢復一種精神偉大的感知並賦予其應有的榮譽，從而使我們的文明能夠一方面對抗財富不斷增長的權力，一方面抵禦庸俗的娛樂。
30. 我們必須恢復道德文化。人類的尊嚴不只是免受干涉的權利，國際人權的學説並沒有窮盡正義的諸種要求，更沒有窮盡善的諸種要求。歐洲需要復興關於道德文化的共識，從而使民眾能被導向一種有道德的生活。我們絕不允許錯誤的自由觀阻礙審慎使用法律以威懾制止邪惡。我們必須寬恕人類的弱點，但如果沒有恢復對正直行為和人類卓越的共同渴望，歐洲就不可能繁榮。一種尊嚴的文化源自正派以及履行我們生活中各種職責之義務。我們需要更新社會階層之間的相互尊重，這是一個重視所有人貢獻的社會的特徵。
31. 市場需要指向社會目標的秩序。我們承認自由市場經濟的許多積極方面，但我們必須抵制那些尋求將市場邏輯總體化的意識形態。我們不能允許所有事物都可出售。運轉良好的市場需要法治，而我們的法治目標不應該僅僅是經濟效率。市場在強有力的、以社會自身而非市場原則組織起來社會體制中也才能發揮最好的作用。經濟增長是有益的，但並不是最高的善。市場需以社會目標為導向。今天，企業巨無霸甚至威脅到政治主權。各國需要通力合作來掌控全球經濟力量的傲慢和盲目。我們認同審慎使用政府權力來維持非經濟性的社會益品。
32. 教育需要改革。我們相信歐洲擁有值得持續的歷史和文化。然而，我們的大學常常背棄我們的文化遺產。我們需要改革教育的課程設置，以促進我們共同文化的傳播，而不是給年輕人灌輸一種否定棄絕的文化。各個層級的教師和導師都擔負着記憶的責任。他們應該為自己擔當連接着過去與未來世代之間的橋樑角色而感到自豪。我們還必須將崇高與美作為我們的共同標準，拒絕將藝術退化為一種政治宣傳，以此來複興歐洲的高雅文化。這將需要培育新一代的藝術贊助人。公司和官僚機構已經表明自己是差勁的藝術管理者。
33. 婚姻和家庭是必不可少的。婚姻是公民社會的根本，是男女和諧的基礎。它是為了維繫家庭和養育孩子而形成的親密紐帶。我們確認，我們在社會中和作為人類最基本的角色就是父親和母親。婚姻和孩子內在於任何一種人類繁榮的願景。孩子需要那些把他們帶到世界上的人們的奉獻。這種奉獻是高尚的，也必須予以敬意。我們贊成以審慎的社會政策來鼓勵和加強婚姻、生育和撫養。一個不歡迎孩子的社會是沒有未來的。
34. 民粹主義應該被介入。由於所謂的“民粹主義”的興起，今天的歐洲存在很大的焦慮，儘管民粹主義這個術語的含義似乎從未被界定，而且它主要被用作謾罵。我們對此持保留態度。歐洲需要依賴她傳統的深刻智慧，而不是依靠簡單化的口號和分裂的情感訴求。儘管如此，我們也承認，在這種新的政治現象中，許多都代表一種對虛假歐洲之暴政的有益反叛，任何對虛假歐洲的道德正當性壟斷的威脅都會被它貼上“反民主”的標籤。所謂的“民粹主義”挑戰了既存現狀的獨裁，即“中心的狂熱”，這是正確的。這是一個跡象，表明即使在我們退化和貧乏的政治文化中，歐洲民族的歷史能動性也可能重生。
35. 我們的未來是真正的歐洲。我們拒絕如下錯誤的主張：在那種——由統一市場、跨國的官僚機構以及油腔滑調的娛樂所構成的——人造的沒有靈魂的團結之外，不存在任何負責任的替代選項。麪包和馬戲團是不夠的。負責任的替代選擇是真正的歐洲。
36. 我們必須擔負責任。在此刻，我們呼籲所有歐洲人加入我們，一起來拒絕那種無國界的多元文化世界的烏托邦幻想。我們有正當的理由熱愛我們的家園，我們努力將我們自己曾接受的每一件高貴的事物，作為我們的遺產，傳給我們的子孫後代。作為歐洲人，我們也分享着一份共同的遺產，這份遺產要求我們作為一個諸國構成的歐洲一起和平生活。讓我們重申民族國家的主權，恢復對歐洲未來的共同政治責任的尊嚴。
附：英文原文
In May 2017, a group of conservative scholars and intellectuals met in Paris. They were brought together by their common concern about the current state of European politics, culture, society—and above all the state of the European mind and imagination. Through delusion and self-deception and ideological distortion, Europe is dissipating her great civilizational inheritance.
Instead of simply wringing their hands in fruitless anxiety, or adding yet another tome to the ample literature that diagnoses “the decline of the West,” the Paris participants believed it was important to make an affirmation, and to do so publicly. They expressed their attachment to “the true Europe,” and did so with reasons that can be recognized by all. In doing so, it was first necessary to give an account of this true Europe, which lies hidden beneath the fashionable abstractions of our age.
The result is, “A Europe We Can Believe In.” This Paris Statement is a ringing call for a renewed understanding of, and appreciation for, Europe’s true genius. It is an invitation to the peoples of Europe to actively recover what is best in our tradition, and to build a peaceful, hopeful, and noble future together.
Please join us in this affirmation.
7 October 2017
THE PARIS STATEMENT
A EUROPE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
1. Europe is our home. Europe belongs to us, and we belong to Europe. These lands are our home; we have no other. The reasons we hold Europe dear exceed our ability to explain or justify our loyalty. It is a matter of shared histories, hopes and loves. It is a matter of accustomed ways, of moments of pathos and pain. It is a matter of inspiring experiences of reconciliation and the promise of a shared future. Ordinary landscapes and events are charged with special meaning—for us, but not for others. Home is a place where things are familiar, and where we are recognized, however far we have wandered. This is the real Europe, our precious and irreplaceable civilization.
2. A false Europe threatens us. Europe, in all its richness and greatness, is threatened by a false understanding of itself. This false Europe imagines itself as a fulfilment of our civilization, but in truth it will confiscate our home. It appeals to exaggerations and distortions of Europe’s authentic virtues while remaining blind to its own vices. Complacently trading in one-sided caricatures of our history, this false Europe is invincibly prejudiced against the past. Its proponents are orphans by choice, and they presume that to be an orphan—to be homeless—is a noble achievement. In this way, the false Europe praises itself as the forerunner of a universal community that is neither universal nor a community.
3. The false Europe is utopian and tyrannical. The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing. Moreover, they are ignorant of the true sources of the humane decencies they themselves hold dear—as do we. They ignore, even repudiate the Christian roots of Europe. At the same time they take great care not to offend Muslims, who they imagine will cheerfully adopt their secular, multicultural outlook. Sunk in prejudice, superstition and ignorance, and blinded by vain, self-congratulating visions of a utopian future, the false Europe reflexively stifles dissent. This is done, of course, in the name of freedom and tolerance.
4. We must defend the real Europe. We are reaching a dead-end. The greatest threat to the future of Europe is neither Russian adventurism nor Muslim immigration. The true Europe is at risk because of the suffocating grip that the false Europe has over our imaginations. Our nations and shared culture are being hollowed out by illusions and self-deceptions about what Europe is and should be. We pledge to resist this threat to our future. We will defend, sustain and champion the real Europe, the Europe to which we all in truth belong.
5. Solidarity and civic loyalty encourage active participation. The true Europe expects and encourages active participation in the common project of political and cultural life. The European ideal is one of solidarity based on assent to a body of law that applies to all, but is limited in its demands. This assent has not always taken the form of representative democracy. But our traditions of civic loyalty reflect a fundamental assent to our political and cultural traditions, whatever their forms. In the past, Europeans fought to make our political systems more open to popular participation, and we are justly proud of this history. Even as they did so, sometimes in open rebellion, they warmly affirmed that, despite their injustices and failures, the traditions of the peoples of this continent are ours. Such dedication to reform makes Europe a place that seeks ever-greater justice. This spirit of progress is born out of our love for and loyalty to our homelands.
6. We are not passive subjects. A European spirit of unity allows us to trust others in the public square, even when we are strangers. The public parks, central squares and broad boulevards of European towns and cities express the European political spirit: We share our common life and the res publica. We assume that it is our duty to take responsibility for the futures of our societies. We are not passive subjects under the domination of despotic powers, whether sacred or secular. And we are not prostrate before implacable historical forces. To be European is to possess political and historical agency. We are the authors of our shared destiny.
7. The nation-state is a hallmark of Europe. The true Europe is a community of nations. We have our own languages, traditions and borders. Yet we have always recognized a kinship with one another, even when we have been at odds—or at war. This unity-in-diversity seems natural to us. Yet this is remarkable and precious, for it is neither natural nor inevitable. The most common political form of unity-in-diversity is empire, which European warrior kings tried to recreate in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire. The allure of the imperial form endured, but the nation-state prevailed, the political form that joins peoplehood with sovereignty. The nation-state thereby became the hallmark of European civilization.
8. We do not back an imposed, enforced unity. A national community takes pride in governing itself in its own way, often boasts of its great national achievements in the arts and sciences, and competes with other nations, sometimes on the battlefield. This has wounded Europe, sometimes gravely, but it has never compromised our cultural unity. In fact, the contrary has been the case. As the nation states of Europe became more established and distinct, a shared European identity became stronger. In the aftermath of the terrible bloodshed of the world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, we emerged with an even greater resolve to honor our shared heritage. This testifies to the depth and power of Europe as a civilization that is cosmopolitan in a proper sense. We do not seek the imposed, enforced unity of empire. Instead, European cosmopolitanism recognizes that patriotic love and civic loyalty open out to a wider world.
9. Christianity encouraged cultural unity. The true Europe has been marked by Christianity. The universal spiritual empire of the Church brought cultural unity to Europe, but did so without political empire. This has allowed for particular civic loyalties to flourish within a shared European culture. The autonomy of what we call civil society became a characteristic feature of European life. Moreover, the Christian Gospel does not deliver a comprehensive divine law, and thus the diversity of the secular laws of the nations may be affirmed and honoured without threat to our European unity. It is no accident that the decline of Christian faith in Europe has been accompanied by renewed efforts to establish political unity—an empire of money and regulations, covered with sentiments of pseudo-religious universalism, that is being constructed by the European Union.
10. Christian roots nourish Europe. The true Europe affirms the equal dignity of every individual, regardless of sex, rank or race. This also arises from our Christian roots. Our gentle virtues are of an unmistakably Christian heritage: fairness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, peace-making, charity. Christianity revolutionized the relationship between men and women, valuing love and mutual fidelity in an unprecedented way. The bond of marriage allows both men and women to flourish in communion. Most of the sacrifices we make are for the sake of our spouses and children. This spirit of self-giving is yet another Christian contribution to the Europe we love.
11. Classical roots encourage excellence. The true Europe also draws inspiration from the Classical tradition. We recognize ourselves in the literature of ancient Greece and Rome. As Europeans, we strive for greatness, the crown of the Classical virtues. At times, this has led to violent competition for supremacy. But at its best, an aspiration toward excellence inspires the men and women of Europe to craft musical and artistic works of unsurpassed beauty and to make extraordinary breakthroughs in science and technology. The grave virtues of the self-possessed Romans and the pride in civic participation and spirit of philosophical inquiry of the Greeks have never been forgotten in the real Europe. These inheritances, too, are ours.
12. Europe is a shared project. The true Europe has never been perfect. The proponents of the false Europe are not wrong to seek development and reform, and there is much that has been accomplished since 1945 and 1989 that we should cherish and honor. Our shared life is an ongoing project, not an ossified inheritance. But the future of Europe rests in renewed loyalty to our best traditions, not a spurious universalism demanding forgetfulness and self-repudiation. Europe did not begin with the Enlightenment. Our beloved home will not be fulfilled with the European Union. The real Europe is, and always will be, a community of nations at once insular, sometimes fiercely so, and yet united by a spiritual legacy that, together, we debate, develop, share—and love.
13. We are losing our home. The true Europe is in jeopardy. The achievements of popular sovereignty, resistance to empire, cosmopolitanism capable of civic love, the Christian legacy of humane and dignified life, a living engagement with our Classical inheritance—all this is slipping away. As the patrons of the false Europe construct their faux Christendom of universal human rights, we are losing our home.
14. A false freedom prevails. The false Europe boasts of an unprecedented commitment to human liberty. This liberty, however, is very one-sided. It sells itself as liberation from all restraints: sexual freedom, freedom of self-expression, freedom to “be oneself.” The Generation of ’68 regards these freedoms as precious victories over a once almighty and oppressive cultural regime. They see themselves as great liberators, and their transgressions are acclaimed as noble moral achievements, for which the whole world should be grateful.
15. Individualism, isolation, and aimlessness are widespread. For Europe’s younger generations, however, reality is far less gilt with gold. Libertine hedonism often leads to boredom and a profound sense of purposelessness. The bond of marriage has weakened. In the roiling sea of sexual liberty, the deep desires of our young people to marry and form families are often frustrated. A liberty that frustrates our heart’s deepest longings becomes a curse. Our societies seem to be falling into individualism, isolation and aimlessness. Instead of freedom, we are condemned to the empty conformity of consumer- and media-driven culture. It is our duty to speak the truth: The Generation of ’68 destroyed but did not build. They created a vacuum now filled by social media, cheap tourism and pornography.
16. We are regulated and managed. At the same time that we hear boasts of unprecedented liberty, European life is more and more comprehensively regulated. Rules—often confected by faceless technocrats in league with powerful interests—govern our work relationships, our business decisions, our educational qualifications, our news and entertainment media. And Europe now seeks to tighten existing regulations on freedom of speech, an aboriginal European freedom—freedom of conscience made manifest. The targets of these restrictions are not obscenity or other assaults on decency in public life. Instead, Europe’s governing classes wish to restrict manifestly political speech. Political leaders who give voice to inconvenient truths about Islam and immigration are hauled before judges. Political correctness enforces strong taboos that deem challenges to the status quo beyond the pale. The false Europe does not really encourage a culture of freedom. It promotes a culture of market-driven homogeneity and politically enforced conformity.
17. Multiculturalism is unworkable. The false Europe also boasts of an unprecedented commitment to equality. It claims to promote non-discrimination and the inclusion of all races, religions and identities. Here, genuine progress has been made, but a utopian detachment from reality has taken hold. Over the past generation, Europe has pursued a grand project of multiculturalism. To demand or even promote the assimilation of Muslim newcomers to our manners and mores, much less to our religion, has been thought a gross injustice. A commitment to equality, we have been told, demands that we abjure any hint that we believe our culture superior. Paradoxically, Europe’s multicultural enterprise, which denies the Christian roots of Europe, trades on the Christian ideal of universal charity in an exaggerated and unsustainable form. It requires from the European peoples a saintly degree of self-abnegation. We are to affirm the very colonization of our homelands and the demise of our culture as Europe’s great twenty-first century glory—a collective act of self-sacrifice for the sake of some new global community of peace and prosperity that is being born.
18. Bad faith grows. There is a great deal of bad faith in this thinking. Most in our governing classes doubtless presume the superiority of European culture—which must not be affirmed in public in ways that might offend immigrants. Given that superiority, they think that assimilation will happen naturally, and quickly. In an ironic echo of the imperialist thinking of old, Europe’s governing classes presume that, somehow, by the laws of nature or of history, ‘they’ will necessarily become like ‘us’—and it is inconceivable that the reverse might be true. In the meantime, official multiculturalism has been deployed as a therapeutic tool for managing the unfortunate but ‘temporary’ cultural tensions.
19. Technocratic tyranny increases. There is more bad faith at work, of a darker kind. Over the last generation, a larger and larger segment of our governing class has decided that its own self-interest lies in accelerated globalization. They wish to build supranational institutions that they are able to control without the inconveniences of popular sovereignty. It is increasingly clear that the ‘democratic deficit’ in the European Union is not a mere technical problem to be remedied by technical means. Rather, this deficit is a fundamental commitment, and it is zealously defended. Whether legitimated by supposed economic necessities or autonomously developing international human rights law, the supra-national mandarins of the EU institutions confiscate the political life of Europe, answering all challenges with a technocratic answer: There is no alternative. This is the soft but increasingly real tyranny we face.
20. The false Europe is fragile and impotent. The hubris of the false Europe is now becoming evident, despite the best efforts of its partisans to shore up comfortable illusions. Above all, the false Europe is revealed to be weaker than anyone imagined. Popular entertainment and material consumption do not sustain civic life. Shorn of higher ideals and discouraged from expressing patriotic pride by multiculturalist ideology, our societies now have difficulty summoning the will to defend themselves. Moreover, civic trust and social cohesion are not renewed by inclusive rhetoric or an impersonal economic system dominated by gigantic international corporations. Again, we must be frank: European societies are fraying badly. If we but open our eyes, we see an ever-greater use of government power, social management and educational indoctrination. It is not just Islamic terror that brings heavily armed soldiers into our streets. Riot police are now necessary to quell violent anti-establishment protests and even to manage drunken crowds of football fans. The fanaticism of our football loyalties is a desperate sign of the deeply human need for solidarity, a need that otherwise goes unfulfilled in the false Europe.
21. A culture of repudiation has taken hold. Europe’s intellectual classes are, alas, among the chief ideological partisans of the conceits of the false Europe. Without doubt, our universities are one of the glories of European civilization. But where once they sought to transmit to each new generation the wisdom of past ages, today most within the universities equate critical thinking with a simpleminded repudiation of the past. A lodestar of the European spirit has been the rigorous discipline of intellectual honesty and objectivity. But over the past two generations, this noble ideal has been transformed. The asceticism that once sought to free the mind of the tyranny of dominant opinion has become an often complacent and unreflective animus against everything that is our own. This stance of cultural repudiation functions as a cheap and easy way of being ‘critical.’ Over the last generation, it has been rehearsed in the lecture halls, becoming a doctrine, a dogma. And to join in professing this creed is taken to be the mark of ‘enlightenment,’ and of spiritual election. As a consequence, our universities are now active agents of ongoing cultural destruction.
22. Elites arrogantly parade their virtue. Our governing classes are advancing human rights. They are at work fighting climate change. They are engineering a more globally integrated market economy and harmonizing tax policies. They are monitoring progress toward gender equality. They are doing so much for us! What does it matter by what mechanisms they inhabit their offices? What does it matter if the European peoples grow more sceptical of their ministrations?
23. There is an alternative. That growing scepticism is fully justified. Today, Europe is dominated by an aimless materialism that seems unable to motivate men and women to have children and form families. A culture of repudiation deprives the next generation of a sense of identity. Some of our countries have regions in which Muslims live with an informal autonomy from local laws, as if they were colonialists rather than fellow members of our nations. Individualism isolates us one from another. Globalization transforms the life prospects of millions. When challenged, our governing classes say that they are merely working to accommodate the inevitable, adjusting to implacable necessities. No other course is possible, and it is irrational to resist. Things cannot be otherwise. Those who object are said to suffer nostalgia—for which they deserve moral condemnation as racists or fascists. As social divisions and civic distrust become more apparent, European public life grows angrier, more rancourous, and no one can say where it will end. We must not continue down this path. We need to throw off the tyranny of the false Europe.
24. We must turn back ersatz religion. The work of renewal begins with theological self-knowledge. The universalist and universalizing pretensions of the false Europe reveal it to be an ersatz religious enterprise, complete with strong creedal commitments—and anathemas. This is the potent opiate that paralyzes Europe as a political body. We must insist that religious aspirations are properly the province of religion, not politics, much less bureaucratic administration. In order to recover our political and historical agency, it is imperative that we re-secularize European public life.
25. We must restore a true liberalism. This will require us to renounce the mendacious language that evades responsibility and fosters ideological manipulation. Talk of diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism is empty. Often, such language is deployed as a way to characterize our failures as accomplishments: The unravelling of social solidarity is ‘actually’ a sign of welcome, tolerance, and inclusion. This is marketing language, a language meant to obscure reality rather than illuminate. We must recover an abiding respect for reality. Language is a delicate instrument, and it is debased when used as a bludgeon. We should be patrons of linguistic decency. Recourse to denunciation is a sign of the decadence of our present moment. We must not tolerate verbal intimidation, much less mortal threats. We need to protect those who speak reasonably, even if we think their views mistaken. The future of Europe must be liberal in the best sense, which means committed to robust public debate free from all threats of violence and coercion.
26. We need responsible statesmen. Breaking the spell of the false Europe and its utopian, pseudo-religious crusade for a borderless world means fostering a new kind of statesmanship and a new kind of statesman. A good political leader stewards the commonweal of a particular people. A good statesman views our shared European inheritance and our particular national traditions as magnificent and life-giving, but also fragile gifts. He does not reject that inheritance, nor does he chance losing it all for utopian dreams. Such leaders covet the honors bestowed upon them by their people; they do not lust for the approbation of the ‘international community,’ which is in fact the public relations apparatus of an oligarchy.
27. We should renew national unity and solidarity. Recognizing the particular character of the European nations, and their Christian mark, we need not be perplexed before the spurious claims of the multiculturalists. Immigration without assimilation is colonization, and this must be rejected. We rightly expect that those who migrate to our lands will incorporate themselves into our nations and adopt our ways. This expectation needs to be supported by sound policy. The language of multiculturalism has been imported from America. But America’s great age of immigration came at the turn of the twentieth century, a period of remarkably rapid economic growth, in a country with virtually no welfare state, and with a very strong sense of national identity to which immigrants were expected to assimilate. After admitting large numbers of immigrants, America closed its doors very nearly shut for two generations. Europe needs to learn from this American experience rather than adopt contemporary American ideologies. That experience tells us that the workplace is a powerful engine of assimilation, that a generous welfare system can impede assimilation and that prudent political leadership sometimes dictates reductions in immigration—even drastic reductions. We must not allow a multicultural ideology to deform our political judgments about how best to serve the common good, which requires national communities with sufficient unity and solidarity to see their good as common.
28. Only empires are multicultural. After World War II, Western Europe cultivated vital democracies. After the collapse of the Soviet Empire, Central European nations restored their civic vitality. These are among Europe’s most precious achievements. But they will be lost if we do not address immigration and demographic change in our nations. Only empires can be multicultural, which is what the European Union will become if we fail to make renewed solidarity and civic unity the criteria by which to assess immigration policies and strategies for assimilation.
29. A proper hierarchy nourishes social well-being. Many wrongly think Europe is being convulsed only by controversies over immigration. In truth, this is but one dimension of a more general social unraveling that must be reversed. We must recover the dignity of particular roles in society. Parents, teachers and professors have a duty to form those under their care. We must resist the cult of expertise that comes at the expense of wisdom, tact and the quest for a cultured life. There can be no renewal of Europe without a determined rejection of an exaggerated egalitarianism and the reduction of wisdom to technical knowledge. We endorse the political achievements of the modern era. Each man and woman should have an equal vote. Basic rights must be protected. But a healthy democracy requires social and cultural hierarchies that encourage the pursuit of excellence and give honor to those who serve the common good. We need to restore a sense of spiritual greatness and give it due honour so that our civilization can counter the growing power of mere wealth on the one hand and vulgar entertainment on the other.
30. We must restore moral culture. Human dignity is more than the right to be left alone, and doctrines of international human rights do not exhaust the claims of justice, much less of the good. Europe needs to renew a consensus about moral culture so that the populace can be guided toward a virtuous life. We must not allow a false view of freedom to impede the prudent use of the law to deter vice. We must be forgiving of human weakness, but Europe cannot flourish without a restoration of a communal aspiration toward upright conduct and human excellence. A culture of dignity flows from decency and the discharge of the duties of our stations in life. We need to renew the exchange of respect between social classes that characterizes a society that values the contributions of all.
31. Markets need to be ordered toward social ends. While we recognize the positive aspects of free-market economics, we must resist ideologies that seek to totalize the logic of the market. We cannot allow everything to be for sale. Well functioning markets require the rule of law, and our rule of law should aim at more than mere economic efficiency. Markets also function best when they are nested within strong social institutions organized on their own, non-market principles. Economic growth, while beneficial, is not the highest good. Markets need to be oriented toward social ends. Today, corporate giganticism threatens even political sovereignty. The nations need to cooperate to master the arrogance and mindlessness of global economic forces. We affirm the prudent use of government power to sustain non-economic social goods.
32. Education needs to be reformed. We believe Europe has a history and culture worth sustaining. Our universities, however, too often betray our cultural heritage. We need to reform educational curricula to foster the transmission of our common culture rather than indoctrinating young people into a culture of repudiation. Teachers and mentors at every level have a duty of memory. They should take pride in their role as a bridge between generations past and generations to come. We must also renew the high culture of Europe by setting the sublime and the beautiful as our common standard and rejecting the degradation of the arts into a kind of political propaganda. This will require the cultivation of a new generation of patrons. Corporations and bureaucracies have shown themselves to be poor stewards of the arts.
33. Marriage and family are essential. Marriage is the foundation of civil society and the basis for harmony between men and women. It is the intimate bond organized around sustaining a household and raising children. We affirm that our most fundamental roles in society and as human beings are as fathers and mothers. Marriage and children are integral to any vision of human flourishing. Children require sacrifice from those who bring them into the world. This sacrifice is noble and must be honoured. We endorse prudent social policies to encourage and strengthen marriage, childbearing, and childrearing. A society that fails to welcome children has no future.
34. Populism should be engaged. There is great anxiety in Europe today because of the rise of what is called ‘populism’—though the meaning of the term seems never to be defined, and it is used mostly as invective. We have our reservations. Europe needs to draw upon the deep wisdom of her traditions rather than relying on simplistic slogans and divisive emotional appeals. Still, we acknowledge that much in this new political phenomenon can represent a healthy rebellion against the tyranny of the false Europe, which labels as ‘anti-democratic’ any threat to its monopoly on moral legitimacy. The so-called “populism” challenges the dictatorship of the status quo, the ‘fanaticism of the centre,’ and rightly so. It is a sign that even in the midst of our degraded and impoverished political culture, the historical agency of the European peoples can be reborn.
35. Our future is the true Europe. We reject as false the claim that there is no responsible alternative to the artificial, soulless solidarity of a unified market, a transnational bureaucracy, and glib entertainment. Bread and circuses are not enough. The responsible alternative is the true Europe.
36. We must take responsibility. In this moment, we ask all Europeans to join us in rejecting the utopian fantasy of a multicultural world without borders. We rightly love our homelands, and we seek to hand on to our children every noble thing that we have ourselves received as our patrimony. As Europeans, we also share a common heritage, and this heritage asks us to live together in peace as a Europe of nations. Let us renew national sovereignty, and recover the dignity of a shared political responsibility for Europe’s future.
—FINIS—
翻譯：廖凌敏、王燦、孫嘉琪（波士頓學院政治學系陳凱碩博士對譯文亦有貢獻）
統校：林國華、劉擎。