Marco Sciberras : A story of European Deracination and Marxism
For most of its history following the 11th century, Malta was regarded as a bastion of Christendom and European civilization amidst a sea of hostility. The conclusion of the Siege of Malta in 1565, whereby roughly 3000 local Maltese led by a small cabal of European aristocrats held back an Ottoman invasion force of more than 40,000, ushered in a ‘Golden Age’ of sorts. Nobility from across the continent poured money into the development and defence of the island, transforming it from a largely barren island into a rich, highly defensible fortress which throughout the 16th and 17th century remained a thorn in the side of the Ottoman Empire and effectively ended its naval dominance in the Mediterranean. Voltaire, the famous 18th century writer, at one point famously wrote, ‘Nothing is better known than the siege of Malta’, emphasizing this importance.
This prosperity failed to last. The spread of Protestantism and the Enlightenment across most of Northern Europe, coupled with decades of poor administration locally, crippled the Island’s economy and military capabilities. In 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded the island with little resistance as he made his way to Egypt, bringing the country under French rule. The French sought to modernize the island and bring it up to speed with the rest of Europe through the implementation of a number of radical administrative changes, which dramatically increased state authority over local affairs. Although initially successful, these changes proved to be highly unpopular amongst locals, who viewed perceived attacks on tradition with distaste. This quickly prompted the outbreak of a major revolt similar to those previously seen in the Vendée and, with the help of the British navy in the Mediterranean, the French would be totally expelled from the island by the end of 1800.
In return for their help in ousting the French, the British were allowed to maintain control of the island as a protectorate. This requestwas unduly ignored by the new occupiers, who quickly established an authoritarian military regime on the island, formally declaring it a crown colony in 1814. During their rule, the British were overwhelmingly successful in destroying the national and racial consciousness of the Maltese people through Marxist infiltration and sustained attacks on national symbols and unity. By Malta’s ‘Independence’ in 1964, a people which in the preceding centuries was willing to fight and die for its culture, religion and dignity had become relegated to a weak, servile, and obese population with only the most superficial understanding of its heritage and identity. This piece is not written with the intent of attacking our brothers in Great Britain, nor does it serve as a New-Leftist ‘critique’ of European expansion. Rather, it seeks to enlighten the reader, through an overview of Malta’s experiences with colonialism, to the devastating effects that successful deracination may have on future generations, and how ongoing processes across Europe in many ways echo and draw influence from 19th and 20th century colonial methods.
19th Century Malta:
Early British rule on the island was characterized by relative passiveness. Although locals were denied political representation, most traditional institutions, particularly in the countryside, remained untouched and were allowed to continue. The new authorities were primarily interested in the harbours in the North-western parts of the island, and therefore paid little to no attention to affairs outside these areas. The few attempts at incorporating some kind of agricultural or major administrative reforms were usually met with intense resistance by the local population, which was largely politically united with a deep sense group identity and agrarian communitarianism.
As the 19th century progressed and British dominance globally became increasingly cemented, colonial authorities actively sought to increase their influence over the island. This new, more ‘civic-minded’ administration understood that, in order to avoid a repeat of what happened to the French, it needed to undermine the authority of institutions and disrupt the social, political, and cultural unity of the population. By flaring up local disputes and preventing the subjugated from developing a strong national consciousness, the colonizers could then exert further control and intervene into internal issues relatively unopposed. This tactic, commonly referred to as ‘Divide and Rule’ has its roots in Roman forms of Imperial governance and would become a staple of European imperialism during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The three groups most staunchly opposed to British interventionism during this period were undoubtedly the Clergy, the landed nobility, as well as the agrarian middle classes and peasantry, which had maintained a quintessential political function prior to the arrival to the French. The cultural, linguistic, and ethnic connection of these groupings to the Italian mainland (most strongly symbolized by the usage of Italian in administrative affairs and education) further compounded this opposition, particularly as the Risorgimento swept the Peninsula during the mid-19th century. Most Maltese during this period felt a spiritual connection to Italy, and regularly used that to differentiate themselves from their Germanic and Protestant rulers and fuel nationalistic and irredentist tendencies, which often translated into organized violence against reform. The ‘Sette Giugno’ riot of 1921 is perhaps the most overt example of this apprehension.
To weaken or outright remove these oppositional aspects, the British underwent twodistinct processes. The first, and most important, was to foster collaborationist and divisive elements locally and integrate them into the political system. When the French and later the British arrived to the island, they found around the coastal areas a large slave population in addition to a primitive working class dependent on the wellbeing of thenaval, military and shipbuilding sectors for survival. By providing these classes with a modicum of political rights, low-level employment and a degree of welfare, the colonizers created a large mass of loyal lumpenproletariat that could easily be mobilized for political gain. Although initially unimportant within the wider political scene, this underclass would become increasingly influential as more and more political rights were handed to the Maltese and as the franchise was expanded to include a wider group of people (as opposed to simply the landed gentry).
As the group began to flourish in the early 20th century, it began to more actively associate itself with the British and European Left, support anglophile reforms and engage in conflict with more right wing and traditionalist groupings. Numerous anecdotes of Marxist inspired thugs assaulting anti-reformist figures exist from this period, and this group was fundamental in the revocation of Italian as one of Malta’s official languages in 1920 due to their support for the collaborationist government led by Gerald Strickland (his daughter, Mabel, would later found the Times of Malta, the country’s largest media outlet). In the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the Second World War and the immediately after it, this group was further empowered by mass arrests of oppositional figures, such as Enrico Mizzi and Herbert Ganado, deemed to be a threat to public safety due to their connections to Fascist Italy. This severed the operational capacity of the Maltese Right and Nationalists, allowing Leftists to more strongly ingrain themselves into the political system. An Intense and successful propaganda campaign following the Second World War, whereby the Italians were portrayed as devils who sought to destroy and oppress a ‘brave and gallant’ Malta forced the Right to moderate their ideology significantly, and allowed anglophiles to gain a foothold in traditionally more conservative areas in the country’s heartland.
By the 1950s this force became able to consistently win elections and more strongly influence public opinion in comparison to the castrated right. Despite being nominally ‘anti-colonial’ and ‘nationalist’ post-independence, leftist figures were still more than happy to maintain Marxist and colonial legacies within our state structure. Dominic Mintoff, although lauded by the Left and other traitors for his ‘hard-line’ attitudes and tenaciousness against British rule, regularly attacked Maltese culture and identity in order to ‘modernise’ (i.e. anglicize) the country, whilst showing little qualm in actively engaging in the culture and attitudes of the capitalist and foreign class he claimed to be against (both he and his children were Oxford educated and lived in villas). The Right would eventually fall in line with this order by the 1960s, when it became dominated by neoliberal infiltrators such as Giorgio Borg Olivier, whose resistance to foreign rule was so meek in comparison to that of his predecessors that he even went as far as to allow the foreigner a direct hand in the writing of the state constitution and the formation of a post-colonial state.
Whilst the population became embroiled in political conflict, the colonisers could divert their attention to diminishing the aforementioned local sources of power and unity.The best way for them to do so was to weaken the authority of such institutions to gradually phase out their social usefulness. This meant replacing many of their traditional functions with state or private alternatives and putting limitations on the amount of power they could reasonably hold within society. It also meant bargaining with moderate elements within those institutions in order to discourage radical political opposition.
By far the biggest institutional threat to external rule was the Clergy. Whilst the nobility and unions were threats in themselves, they lacked the public involvement and societal importance of the Catholic Church, which for since the end of 11th century had been the sole provider of welfare, education, and, in many cases, legal consultation. The first step the British took to undermining the Church was again to cut off its ties to its counterpart in Italy. Prior to their arrival, Malta’s clergy was under the authority of the archbishopric of Palermo. This made interaction over local issues difficult for the British, who often had to cooperate with an overseas organisation to reach consensus on Maltese affairs. To rectify this, appellations were made to the pope and the Kingdom of Two Sicilies (which by this point was subservient to British Imperial interests) for the creation of an Archdiocese specific to Malta. Whilst initially unsuccessful (an Archdiocese would only be created in 1944), the parties agreed to transfer greater autonomy to the Maltese clergy and gave the colonisers a direct hand in the choosing of new bishops when relevant. Although this benefitted Malta to a certain extent, it also gave the British extensive control in clerical affairs. This translated into a number of land reforms which limited Church property ownership in the mid-19th century, as well as the reduction of the power of the Ecclesiastical court which cemented the primacy of colonial courts. This also reduced the funding of the clergy, which now became forced to illicit funds from charity.
With the Church now more servile and willing to cooperate, colonial authorities now sought to more strongly integrate themselves into local education and infrastructure. Whilst legally they were disallowed from directly attacking Malta’s Catholic legacy due to pre-existing agreements, they could still distort it through manipulation and selective teaching. The introduction of mandatory secular education under a British curriculum and the increase of state involvement in archival and notarial affairs gave the colonisers a unique position in determining Malta’s racial and cultural identity. The teaching of history to Maltese students became highly selective and liberalized, often downplaying the role of locals in historical processes and attempting to portray them as a loyal, servile people with no history of aggression. Archives that were regularly maintained by local ecclesiastical authorities were now handed over to the state due to a lack of funding, which meant that key information and records were often lost or damaged to the point of uselessness. This, in turn, allowed for, if not total Anglicization, the damaging of national character due to a lack of cultural aspects to cling onto, reducing locals to an Africa-level of national consciousness.
21st Century Malta:
Malta nominally gained its independence in 1964, after approximately 164 years of colonial rule. Despite this, very little has reasonably changed since then and colonial rule continues. However, subservience to the British Empire has been replaced by servitude to neoliberalism and cultural Marxism, with Maltese culture rapidly on its way to total extinction in the name of modernity, economic development, and social liberalism.
As mentioned previously, Malta’s post-colonial governments maintained methodologies used under the previous administration. Although claiming to be independent and patriotic, our Marxist-led governments underwent vitriolic processes of cultural destruction far worse than what had been seen during the 19th century. The Italian language is all but dead locally, whilst Maltese is continuously bastardised with foreign loanwords under the encouragement of our progressive media institutions. Overbuilding by corrupt real estate developers deeply connected to our state deliberately threatens our environmental and national heritage (the little that still remains). In line with this, tourism in conjunction with the importation of mass amounts of borderline slave labor from Europe and beyond has rendered living on the island next to impossible for most. As of 2018, Malta maintains the highest emigration rate in Europe, far higher than that of, say, Romania or Poland. However, you would be hard-pressed to hear this information from the European or local media, which seeks to posit Malta as a 21st century paradise, complete with yuppie beach resorts and rights for the perverse.
What about the resistance? Virtually non-existent. Until the end of the Second World War, Malta had on it a thriving Nationalist and traditionalist movement which interacted heavily with those in Italy and Spain. Since then, it mostly fell apart as the right became dominated by moderate conservatives who lacked any form of ideology or long-term visions of society. Nowadays, the few nationalist figures or movements which exist are effectively carbon copies of ‘Alt-Right’ or Identitarian organisations overseas or crazies totally disconnected from the reality Malta is facing. Most people with genuine concerns for the future survival of their country and race have moved on to mainland Europe, where they either connect with more prevalent nationalist groups or pursue individual action. Attempts to organise the local population usually fall face-first into the dirt, either as a result of state persecution or general laziness from ‘patriots’ who are more concerned with what they’re having for dinner than they are for their suffering neighbour.
Whilst this article may seem like a historical piece with little relevance to European Nationalism, I fully believe that understanding the processes used in Malta’s pacification would be useful for the activist attempting to implement change in his home country. As a Maltese national who has lived abroad consistently over the past four years and interacted with movements across Europe, I cannot help but note a number of similarities to what Malta previously went through to what Europe is currently experiencing. In essence, the exasperation of the superficial elements of the migration crisis as well as recent progressive reforms serve as methods to foment disunity amongst European populations and distract them away from the wider neoliberal and cultural Marxist system keeping them in chains. This disunity is once again maintained and furthered through state-sponsored leftist and anti-fascist organizations, as well as cuckolded ‘nationalists’ who have signed a deal with the devil for public support and political safety. These are empowered by the total re-writing of national history by the establishment to portray Europeans as a vile and inherently destructive race. As this process is maintained, traditional European institutions such as the family are undermined through excessive taxation and replaced by state-run alternatives which then inject the individuals involved with intense propaganda. Moreover, groupings which once represented tradition and identity such as the Catholic Church have been infiltrated and made servile by traitors more concerned with keeping the status quo alive rather than furthering any particular cause.
Europeans must wake up and understand that they are not immune to the methodologies that were once used to keep Africa and Asia in check. They must understand that Europe is now essentially a colonized continent and should therefore act accordingly. To this end, the Nationalist must understand that attempting to reach out to the population to placation and dealing with ‘conventional issues’ can in no way work until the now-broken spirit of that people is re-awakened to its reality and identity through accelerationism, blatancy, ideological purity and historical awareness.
Author is The Spear’s guest writer