In so many ways, the political left in the West aligns itself with radical Islam. Why? Because they have a mutual enemy: democracy. Western leftists and Radical Islamists both have no use for individual liberty. They both have totalitarian worldviews. Even though the Western left is secular, it thinks it can form an alliance with Radical Islam to overthrow capitalism, and somehow, share power with the Islamists afterward.
This is what the leftists in pre-revolution Iran believed when they joined forces with the Ayatolla Khomeini against the Shah. The were unable to see that Khomeini had no intention of sharing power with them, and would impose a totalitarian theocracy by force. Socialists and communists are now criminals in Iran; a crime punishable by death.
But the western left has learned nothing from this, and continues to fight for people who would destroy them at the first opportunity.
Fjordman at the Brussels Journal looks at this phenomenon in this article:
From Citizen to Subject: The Rule of Experts and the Rise of Transnational Anti-Democrats
It's a very thorough article, examining the reasons why democracy in Europe is fading fast, with the help of the Left and the Radical Islamists. And what is speeding this along? The European Union. Fjordman says of the UE:
"Its governmental structure is post-democratic. It is unelected and, for the most part, unaccountable.”
He attributes to the UE a quality he calls "transnational progressivism", which is opposed to liberal democracy. He describes it thus:
...Transnational progressivism is undemocratic and authoritarian to its core. It presupposes the rule of enlightened “experts” and élite groups over the ignorant masses, who are stupid and should not be permitted to make important decisions without supervision. Its goal is to establish a benign oligarchy, where power will reside within smaller groups which will conduct their affairs out of the public view. This line of thinking is nothing less than a frontal attack on all basic principles of freedom and democracy, disguised under a benevolent façade. It needs to be exposed as such. Transnational organizations such as the European Union are a throwback to the pre-democratic age...
This in turn is also aiding another force that eroding liberal democracy: unbridled immigration. He not only speaks about how this is happening in Europe, but also in the USA as well:
...Even in the USA, the most astonishing aspect of the immigration debate is that the élites “think they can override the clear and huge resistance of the American people.” As columnist Tony Blankley wrote, the Senate was prepared to “legislate into the teeth of the will of the American public.” Eight out of ten Americans wanted the borders closed to millions of illegal immigrants, yet nothing substantial has been done. There has to be a reason for this.
There is also in the USA a dangerous drive for granting full rights, even voting rights, to illegal immigrants. In the Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark – [and also in Belgium] foreign citizens, though not illegals, are allowed to vote in local elections. As Roger Scruton points out, Western civilization depends on an idea of citizenship that is not global at all, but rooted in territorial jurisdiction and national loyalty. A nation that refuses to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens cannot survive.
It is more than a little ironic that people calling for restrictions of immigration are denounced as “anti-democratic forces” when it is the other way around. The most fundamental democratic right of all must be to decide who should be allowed to move into your home. Freedom of speech and immigration control should not be outsourced to faceless bureaucrats in Brussels or the UN. The people should decide who should be allowed to settle in their country...
As if that isn't disturbing enough, he also makes a case for immigration of Muslims further eroding liberal democracy, with the help of the UN and leftist groups worldwide:
...UN bureaucrats from Islamic countries are influencing how we should manage our immigration policies, even our freedom of speech. This comes on top of the maze of non-governmental organizations and self-appointed human rights groups at home and abroad, always interfering in anything we do to maintain our own borders. Put together, this means that Westerners are no longer allowed to decide who should settle in their countries. This is decided by national bureaucrats in collaboration with Leftist open-border activists and the transnational, Multicultural industry.
Muslim immigrants want to first infiltrate established political parties, to ensure VIP treatment of Muslims and to keep the floodgates open to new Muslims arriving, and later to establish parties of their own. So far, this strategy has shown some success. They have also been rather successful at spreading terror in the West and instilling “fear into the hearts of the enemies of Allah,” just as the Koran commands. As Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina and other former Muslims have warned against, there is more evidence of an Islamization of democracy in the West than of any spread of democracy in the Islamic world.
I have warned against the development of a pragmatic alliance between Western Leftists and Muslims. Third World immigrants in general, and Muslims in particular, vote overwhelmingly for Leftist parties. This means that by simply opening the gates for massive immigration, Socialists can be certain of a net gain in future elections. This is a critical flaw in our societies, one that could destroy the entire democratic system unless fixed...
Fjordman offers the following as an example of what a fixed, healthy and functioning democracy would look like:
...To sum it up, here are some suggested preconditions for a functioning, democratic system:
1. There has to be a demos, a people with the sense of being a people with shared interests. Multiculturalism and massive immigration without assimilation could severely damage this demos.
2. There has to be a genuine debate about the issues that matter. This is now severely curtailed in many Western countries for a combination of reasons. Leftist activists are promoting formal and informal censorship of critical issues, and the media isn’t functioning as a counterweight to the political élites because, in many cases, the journalists are a part of these élites and share their political goals.
3. There has to be a mental connection between those implementing policies and the people they are supposed to serve. And the general public must have a genuine possibility of removing those officials who are not following the popular will. With the growth of supranational institutions, there are now many people in the élite groups who feel little connection with the people or the nation states they are technically supposed to serve. Their people are just stepping stones to their international careers. They are anyway both physically and mentally so removed from ordinary people that they may not understand their concerns even if they cared about them, which they frequently don’t.
4. No major presence of Muslims. Islam is toxic to a democratic society, for several reasons. One is the fear of physical attacks against anybody criticizing the Islamic agenda, thus destroying any possibility of a free, public discourse. Another is the resentment caused by Muslims asking for separate laws and “special treatment,” as well as the violence and harassment of non-Muslims which is always part and parcel of Jihad.
5. The country must be able to control its own borders, and immigration must follow popular will. A nation that does not discriminate between citizens and non-citizens is destined to die.
The scary thing is, when I look at this list, in Western Europe in particular hardly any of these necessary preconditions for a democracy are currently present. We are no longer citizens, we have become subjects, without genuine influence over the future of our countries and mere spectators to destinies others have chosen for us. We are citizens if we have genuine influence over what our tax money is spent on. We are subjects if we just pay taxes and somebody else decides what to do with this money, without consulting us on major issues.
What to do about this situation? Some possible remedies have been suggested by Anthony Browne...
(bold emphasis mine) This article isn't all doom and gloom. It goes on to look at some possible ways to halt and reverse the anti-democratic trends that threaten to enslave us. It's a long article, full of interesting links and much more information than I could ever excerpt here. Fjordman makes many brilliant and clear observations, it makes for facinating reading.
Related Links:
Farewell to the United Nations?
Historian David Littman is a representative to the United Nations (Geneva) of the Association for World Education. He has spent years tracking the rise of Islamic influence at the UN. According to him, “In recent years, representatives of some Muslim states have demanded, and often received, special treatment at the United Nations.” “As a result, non-diplomatic terms such as ‘blasphemy’ and ‘defamation of Islam’ have seeped into the United Nations system, leading to a situation in which non-Muslim governments accept certain rules of conduct in conformity with Islamic law (the Shari’a) and acquiesce to a self-imposed silence regarding topics touching on Islam.” ...
The rest of the article is just as shocking. Is it any wonder the UN is completely ineffective at dealing with Iran?
Electing a New People: The Leftist - Islamic Alliance
...Leftists and Muslims have a mutual short-term interest in keeping the Leftist parties in power, and a mutual long-term interest in weakening the traditional, Judeo-Christian culture of Europe, which Socialists at best view with indifference, at worst as an evil obstacle blocking the road to the Socialist Utopia. Besides, Socialists traditionally place little ideological importance on such trivial matters as national borders. I believe Lenin said that borders between Soviet Republics were unimportant, as Socialism would transcend all national and religious boundaries and render them a thing of the past, anyway.
Many Marxists still haven't given up that ideal, after a century of failures. Hanne Andersen, a Danish Social Democrat, thinks that people from, say, Yemen or Pakistan should have as much right to live in Denmark as native Danes...
No comments:
Post a Comment