1) Perhaps the best method in which one can gauge the spread and sway of any grassroots discourse (in this case that of xenophobia) is to observe the effect it has on dominant ideology – the extent, that is, to which it is able to force dominant ideology to yield to “compromises” and “adjustments” in the face of such spreading grassroots discourse.2) The dominant ideology of “multiculturalist humanism”, which has long been espoused by both the German State and the European “Left”, has had no choice but partially yield to the demands, on the part of European civil society, for the protection of its European and especially national self-identity. In the Greek press at least, such yielding to grassroots pressure has best been analyzed by Stavros Lygeros (cf., for instance, his articles published in «ΠΡΩΤΟ ΘΕΜΑ», 10.1.2016 & 31.1.2016).3) The vast majority of the German popular masses reject Merkel’s pro-immigration policy (meant to serve the labour-needs of big capital) and explicitly assert that the influx of Muslims into Germany «θα αλλοιώσει την πολιτισμική ταυτότητα της Γερμανίας και ευρύτερα της Ευρώπης» (Lygeros). In fact, only 16% of Germans sees the presence of immigrants in a somewhat positive light. It is precisely this grassroots pressure that has forced the German Party Political System as a whole (bar Parties such as Die Linke, with only 8, 6% of the vote) to adopt an anti-Merkel stance on the question of immigration.4) The assertion that European and national culture need be salvaged in the face of the Muslim “invasion” is of course not at all limited to German civil society – it runs right across Europe. As Lygeros observes: «Είναι ένα επιχείρημα που βρίσκει ολοένα και μεγαλύτερη απήχηση όχι μόνο στη γερμανική, αλλά και στις υπόλοιπες ευρωπαϊκές κοινωνίες».5) Throughout much of Europe, therefore, we can see grassroots anti-Muslim sentiments being diffused from the “bottom” and permeating the governments of European countries, whatever be their “ideological” orientation. The sheer impact of material reality is forging a “European consciousness” and a concomitant “nation-state consciousness” that simply cannot be contained by European States. To the extent that the influx of illegal immigrants cannot be held back, so too the rise of so-called xenophobia can also not be restrained. This should be seen as an objectively-determined phenomenon: we know that to each action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. The reaction has not been exactly “equal”, but it has been powerful enough to force the European political élites to “compromise” their ideology of “multiculturalist humanism”.6) It is precisely within such context that one needs to understand the popular rise of xenophobia within the Visegrad Group: popular grassroots sentiment wishing to avert a “clash of cultures” has forced the Visegrad States to adopt a quasi-institutionalized “xenophobic” policy.7) And it is precisely within this same context that one should understand Austria’s pact with nine Balkan States to halt the influx of immigrants (February 24, 2016 meeting in Vienna).8) Lygeros himself has observed: «Στην πραγματικότητα, περισσότερο ή λιγότερο, όλες σχεδόν οι χώρες-μέλη διολισθαίνουν ανομολόγητα στην πολιτική του Ούγγρου πρωθυπουργού Βίκτορ Ορμπάν».9) Symptomatic of the whole situation is that towards the end of February and early March, 2016, the French Socialist Government had no choice but move in and violently tear down the Calais sprawling “Jungle” of 3,500 immigrants.10) What is of great interest, finally, is that within such context, we see a so-called “radical Left” government in Greece actually accepting the deployment of NATO vessels in the Aegean to help control the number of immigrants crossing from Turkey into the Greek islands.11) All these events point to the possible looming dominance of a so-called xenophobia in Europe – and yet, this does not necessarily mean that European civil society has won the day. It seems almost inevitable that, at some point in time, big capital (and the political forces which represent it) shall fight back: “humanism” and “multiculturalism” remain its ideological tools.