A Communism for the 21st Century
By Fjordman
Brussels Journal | May 17, 2007
I've received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological
and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it's all
about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any
cost. Many of the proponents don't believe in the doctrine of
Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn't waste any time analyzing
the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down
Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some
ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.
On one hand, we're supposed to "celebrate" our differences at the same
time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between
groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which
is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means.
Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just
minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as
we gradually eradicate them.
We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion
accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural
society is "colorful," an adjective normally attached to furniture or
curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence,
and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to
change it every now and then. Don't you get tired of that old sofa
sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it's
slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it's very much in vogue
these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they
get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to
go with that sharia?
We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is
essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted
by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief
that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions
as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn't say that cultures
or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or
secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions.
I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become
the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn't matter because
all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else,
anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one
fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won't make a
big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in
different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that
all political ideologies "basically mean the same thing." They simply
don't view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won't
spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific
creed. This is Marxist materialism.
The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is
over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one
another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because
mankind will be one and equal. It's cultural and genetic Communism.
Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders
constitute "discrimination" and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will
gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of
course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move
wherever they want to and where international legislation and human
rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of - supposedly
well-meaning - transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.
What the proponents of this ideology don't say is that even if it were
possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view
neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or
centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and
enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly
allow themselves to be eradicated.
All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and
religion, are treated as imaginary social constructs. We are told that
"all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other," that we were "all
immigrants" at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim
any specific piece of land as "theirs."
Since "we" are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially
deconstructed. The Marxist "counter-culture"of the 1960s and 70s has
been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of Western
civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one
single generation can inflict upon a society. Maybe it's true that no
chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education system is now
used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the
Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the
very fabric of society. Our countries have become so damaged that people
feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt was the
intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and
ideological cripples with no sense of identity, and are met with a roar
of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a spine.
Codie Stott, a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on
suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offense after
refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because some of
them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had
her fingerprints taken and was thrown into a cell before being released.
Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: "A lot of these arrests
don't result in prosecutions - the aim is to frighten us into
self-censorship until we watch everything we say."
Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to
six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, "Proud to be
British," and "Go back to where you came from." This happened while
Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state
sponsorship for having several wives.
Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against
"racists," openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons
with their full name and address published on their website. According
to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for
a classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one
hundred million people during a few generations, and they are the good
guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their own
country through mass immigration are the bad guys.
The extreme Left didn't succeed in staging a violent revolution in the
West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution
instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a
violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have
displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The
Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one
disappointed them.
A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on
Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20
had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz.
"Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings," Ander
Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide
poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than
one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40
percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity
in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive
ignorance, among them that "a large majority of Swedish journalists are
left-wingers, many of them quite far left."
I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in
Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring
coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural
society.
The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French
influence, the whole of the Mediterranean region "is suited to becoming
a laboratory for European thought." First of all, I don't think Islam
can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the
cultural confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride,
they are a nation deeply unsure about themselves, and still carry
psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: A
bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European
thought into the Islamic world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right
now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I greatly resent seeing
tens of millions of human beings described as a "laboratory."
Unfortunately, Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas.
Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: "Belgium is the
laboratory of European unification." What kind of confidence does it
inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks about their country
as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.
In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign.
Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can
hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social
engineering, and believes this population replacement "is an impressive
and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective."
Yes, it is probably the first time in human history that a nation
demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without
firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it
won't be the last. The European Union and the local, Multicultural
elites will see to that.
The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why
Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every
bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some
kind of alternate reality where "Europe's affluence and free speech"
will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a
massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the
latter:
"When I'm feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small
laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical,
as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture
of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little
explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just
continues."
What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de
Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting
specimen in her microscope. I'm sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to
hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in
his chest for having "insulted" Islam, along with that of the "racist"
Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What
was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being
ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to
make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no
doubt, but one mustn't call off the entire Multicultural experiment
because of a few minor setbacks.
We all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo
was commissioned by the Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel
within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. Did any of the Caliphs
or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in
Mecca? Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the
political works of the ancient Greeks were never translated to Arabic,
as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled themselves
according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims.
The same texts were later studied with great interest in the West.
Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in
shaping a society. Islam's hostility to free speech is why Muslims never
had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for instance. If you
believe in evolution, isn't it then also likely that some cultures are
more evolved than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away,
doesn't it?
British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country
more in one decade than arguably any other leader has done before him.
He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it turned out, his party
was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism.
According to the writer Melanie Phillips, "He is driven by a
universalist world view which minimises the profound nature of the
conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions belong
essentially to a primitive past. (...) Hence his closely-related
obsession with 'universal' human rights law. Hence also his belief that
national borders no longer matter, that mass immigration is a good thing
and that Britain's unique identity must give way to multiculturalism.
This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war,
and create a global utopia. What a profound misjudgment. It is, instead,
the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations that create and
sustain it."
Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing
newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 2007 that it should be considered a
universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate wherever they
want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a
global population growth of several billion people to 2050.
It doesn't take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will
spell certain death for a tiny Scandinavian nation - not in a matter of
generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. Ms. Simonsen is
thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost
as an afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in
the media establishment, which could indicate that most of them share
her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact that our
death as a people is already inevitable.
Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private
property. Let's assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the
"property" of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating
its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its
schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its
political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities
needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this
country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?
According to Marxist logic, yes.
Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the
inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and
functioning household. They have limited their number of children
because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B,
the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children
who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move
to their neighbors'. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting,
but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more
people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International,
the United Nations and others claim that it is "racist" and "against
international law" for the inhabitants of House A to expel the
intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated
and dysfunctional household just like House B.
This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become
a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic
world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they
want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is
"racism, xenophobia and bigotry," is the Communism of the 21st century.
And it will probably lead to immense human suffering.
One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to
declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to
worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that
Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society,
from the universities to the media. While the "hard" Marxism of the
Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the "soft" Marxism of
the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we
mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening.
Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a
virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as
"anti-racism" and "tolerance," Leftists have achieved a degree of
censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that
their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and
destroy its foundations.
According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, "the lofty idea
of 'the war on racism' is gradually turning into a hideously false
ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what
Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence."
Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only
to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led
him to write the book How the West Was Lost. Boot believes that
democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the
people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by
glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.
In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons,
those who control the most fearsome of these weapons control society. In
the West, where equality in all walks of life is the highest virtue and
"discrimination" is a mortal sin, the "racist" is the worst of
creatures. Those who control the definition of "racist," the nuclear
bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they can utilize to
intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers
and ruin lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal.
Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a
cartel of anti-racist organizations dominated by the extreme Left, often
in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to mass
immigration as "racism," they can stage a transformation of society
every bit as massive as that of Communism, yet virtually shut down
debate about it.
Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood:
"Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on
industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or
had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never
saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. [...] Whatever else he
was, Marx was not a scientist. [.] Marx ideals are unachievable
precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite
managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For
example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both
Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property
without exception. Even Stalin's Russia of the 1930s fell short of that
ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private
hands [...] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a
humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with,
with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts,
Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So
where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so
in the direction of softening it."
The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the
European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks
that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in
the context of ideas: "Communism might have been dead, but the
communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc
countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the
world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the
defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left
in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a
shift to the Left, this time quite illogically."
Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process
after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are
now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to
endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or
that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of
millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that
had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society,
tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay.
But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a
government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a
totalitarian society. There is no "enlightened Marxism," and the idea
that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in
modern history.
Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.
The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of
cultural relativism is that if there can be no absolute truths, there
can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western weakness
when confronted with Islamic Jihad. Our sense of right and wrong has
been deeply damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek
historian Thucydides' writings about The History of the Peloponnesian
War from the 5th century BC:
"Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political
history reveals the world is made by men and, instead of being 'absolved
of blame', men are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
This was the very point that informed Thucydides' study of the
Peloponnesian War: the fate of Athens had been determined not by
prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and social
organisation."
Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and
truth exists. We used to know that. It's time we get to know it again,
and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not
racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor
are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social
experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of
transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud
by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.
Post by f***@verizon.netPost by f***@verizon.netPost by choro-nikBeing Jewish is a question of faith. Nothing more, nothing less.
Depends on how you look at it.
Jews, of course, consider it a spiritual state.
The bgot knows this is a lie. The hubby (TM) gets his car serviced
on the jew sabbath. What's "spiritual" about that?
Susan
<crap fluyshed>