The French Republic and Religion

Here is an interesting perspective:

I never knew how differently France and America value religion

I made my first trip to France in December 2003, when I visited my French cousins in Paris. At the time, newspapers were headlined with the motto of the French Republic, but with the last word changed: “Liberté, Egalité, Laicité.”

That was the buzzword at the time: laicité, or secularism. A law was being advanced to forbid students at public schools from displaying any religious symbols — no headscarves for Muslim girls, no yarmulkes for Jewish boys. The law passed, and it's still in effect.

I debated the law with my cousins around the dinner table, and it became clear that we came from starkly different societies. If the US enshrined freedom of religion, France seemed to be embracing freedom from religion. People’s religious affiliations should not be present at all in the public sphere, my cousins said.

Now I'm back in Paris. I joined my French cousins Ivan and Katia at the huge march that followed the deadly attacks on the Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket. Religion was again at the forefront of the national conversation in France.

“I am here because I want the religion and the religious people to stay away from the Republic,” Ivan said. “If we want to live together, we have to respect laws of the Republic and keep religion home.”

My cousin Katia mentioned a recent train ride she took. “A lady came with a black dress. Only her face was not covered … and she had black gloves,” she said. “It hurts me. And the same thing about Jewish people with a [yarmulke] and a hat. I can’t stand that.”

“What does that say to you?” I asked. “What message are those people putting out?”

“I’m different and I’m showing it,” she said. “They want to belong to community, which I understand, but why showing it to others? This I don’t understand.”

The word "community" has come up a lot on my visit here. We often talk in America about the Muslim community or the Jewish community, taking for granted that our ethnic or religious identities don’t negate our identities as Americans. But in France, I’ve learned that “community” is something of a dirty word.

The French Republic rests on the notion of secularism, that your "community" is France itself. To many, belonging to a community in France carries the connotation that you wish to be apart from French society. [...]

Read the whole thing. It would seem that there are many younger people there looking to belong to a community, and some of them are looking for it in religion.

     

German Chancellor Merkel Makes Waves

Angela Merkel declares death of German multiculturalism
Chancellor's remarks, which claimed multiculturalism had 'failed utterly', interpreted as a shift rightwards from previous views

[...] Merkel's verdict marks a shift in her previously liberal line on immigration which had always put her at odds with the more conservative wing of the party.

While she stressed in the same speech that immigrants were welcome in Germany and that Islam was a part of the nation's modern-day culture, her remarks positioned her closer to Horst Seehofer, the Bavarian state premier of the Christian Social Union, who last week called for an end to immigration from Turkey and Arab countries.

They also align her with Thilo Sarrazin, the former Bundesbank member whose book on how the failure of many of Germany's 16 million immigrants to integrate was contributing to Germany's decline led to his dismissal.

Sharing the same podium as Merkel in Potsdam, Seehofer also said "multi-culturalism is dead" and that both the rightwing parties were committed to a "dominant German culture". If Germany did not revise its immigration policies, he said, it was in danger of becoming "the world's welfare office".

Seehofer insisted his statement was "an attempt to stop rightwing lunatics" but Jürgen Trittin, for the Greens, called the comments "shabby" and in danger of "lending social acceptability to views similar to those of rightwing extremists". There is a labour shortage in Germany. The chamber of industry and commerce has said that Germany is short of 400,000 skilled workers and that the gap is costing €25bn a year, equivalent to 1% of growth annually.

While industrialists have called on the government to remove obstacles stopping more skilled workers entering Germany, citing lengthy bureaucratic procedures as well as unrealistic thresholds, others say that long-term unemployed German workers should be given more of a chance first. Merkel insisted in her speech that immigrant workers should not be considered "until we have done all we can to help our own people to become qualified and give them a chance".

The issue has caused tension within Merkel's year-old coalition with the pro-business Free Democrats.

Labour minister Ursula von der Leyen, a member of Merkel's party, has said it was an illusion to believe people were queueing up to enter Germany.

"For several years more people have been leaving our country than entering it," she said in an interview. "Wherever it is possible, we must lower the entry hurdles for those who bring the country forward."

Merkel faces pressure to take a tougher line on immigration, particularly on so-called "integrationsverweigerer" or those immigrants who show a lack of willingness to adapt to the majority culture, by, for example, refusing to attend German language classes. [...]

There were hints that this was coming, when Merkel visited Turkey in March, when she stressed that immigrants needed to at least learn the language an integrate, if not assimilate. And there have been ongoing problems with honor killings of women who have tried to integrate or assimilate to German culture.

The article goes on to say that a study showed that 30% of Germans who were questioned believe that Germany is being over-run by foreigners. There are lots of reasons why Merkel is changing her tune somewhat. But whatever the reasons, I'm sure the Leftist multi-culturalists are going to bring out their long knives for Merkel now.
     

More reasons for not visiting Portland, OR

I live in rural Oregon, but I'm not at all tempted to visit Portland. The following article by Takuan Seiyo at the Brussel's Journal gives me many reasons to feel that way:



Postcard from Zinnlandia

I am on the MAX Red Line light rail car going from downtown Portland to the Airport. Some things socialists do better. Among them are public transportation, recycling, French poetry readings, yoga, coffee, artisan food and arthouse cinema. Would it that the counterscale were not so much more loaded.

Two hefty women in Birkenstocks and Nordic sweaters sit on the bench in front of me. They are either academics or lesbians or both. Portland is a babe magnet for this kind of babes.

One of them, silver bangles jangling, is showing a souvenir purchase to the other. It’s a garden gnome, complete with a red cap and a Walt Disney tunic stretched taut over a rotund belly. The face, though, is less jovial than one expects on a gnome. An etched inscription on the base reads, “Howard Zinn.”

We are leaving Zinnlandia, after all – that great land of the Pacific Northwest, rich in good wine, including zinfandel, and other bounties of nature. Howard Zinn and his doppelgänger, Noam Chomsky, are to the coastal zones of this blessed land what St. Patrick is to the Emerald Isle. And, like Finlandia, Jutlandia and Hollandia, Zinnlandia too has much Northern European DNA.

Zinnlandia is in Amerikka – that racist, capitalist land of injustice, sexism, specieism, lookism, theism, militarism and homophobia. As a material and cultural Marxist, and skillful propagandist, Zinn – a master of sieving American history for its worst nuggets – is the perfect avatar for the self-flagellating white inhabitant of this land.

A Zinnlandian I met on this trip, a WASP physician endowed with the best education much money can buy, told me that he does not celebrate July 4th because the Declaration of Independence had been written by a slave owner and signed by other slave owners. He was just as hotly critical of the “racism” of Americans in dealing with the growing Muslim immigrant minority. The conversation unfolded over a bottle of Oregon Vino Pinko, with the likeness of a notorious Cuban mass murderer on the label.

Besides the pervasive lefty obtuseness as to the true nature of Che Guevara, there is one central paradox in this Zinnlandian, as there is in all of them. [...]

He goes on to describe his experiences in "Zinnlandia", and the history of crimes committed on the very train he is riding on. They all tie together. In the end, he compares Portland with many other cities he's visited. I enjoy the authors wit, but it's not a pretty picture for a Sunday. I think I need to go work in the garden now... thank God I live in the country.


Related Links:

Attracting a crowd means what exactly?

Anti-American "Art" at Portland Oregon Airport
     

Extremists deplore the threat of humor

From A. Millar at the Brussels Journal:

Modern Britain: No Laughing Matter

[...] Political correctness has cowed society and politics, and trodden down common sense and humor. Unlike the defiant, bawdy Brit of the past, today he thinks before he speaks, running through the list of forbidden words, and making sure not to let one slip. And so much now is taboo. The English Democrats Party is under investigation for racism, for using the term, “tartan tax,” a student was arrested for calling a police horse “gay,” and, if you need to see the proof of such extreme “politically correct” intolerance, a Youtube video showing a young man being arrested for singing, “I’d rather wear a turban” (deemed racist by the arresting officer), can be seen here.

A common language is one of the traditional, defining marks of a nation, and the criminalization of words will have a very profound consequence for the British. Though rarely acknowledged as such, humor is another defining mark, and one that makes use of the nation’s language in particular ways that relies on the audience having a good general knowledge of culture, history, and politics. Notably, Voltaire once commented that tragedies could be translated from one tongue to another, but that comedies could not. Anyone wishing to grasp the English comedy would need to, “spend three years in London, to make yourself master of the English tongue, and to frequent the playhouse every night,” he suggested.

Political correctness has changed British politics and society, the latter of which has been famed for its ability to laugh at itself – an ability that has certainly helped to keep it free and democratic. Extremists – whether of the fascist, politically correct, or Islamic type – are united in their suspicion – even rejection – of humor. Humor shows them for what they really are. [...]

The article goes on to give more examples. The author laments that things that are solemn court cases now, would have been laughed at as material for a comedy sketch 10 years ago. It would have been inconceivable that such things would be taken seriously with the force of law. What has happened in that 10 years? I explored that question in a prior post:

Can political correctness destroy a nation?

The question is important, if only to prevent it from ever happening here. I watch with interest, and horror, as it continues to unfold there.
     

Can political correctness destroy a nation?

Great Britain is a good contemporary example. For years, creeping political correctness has been making inroads there, much as it has here in the USA. But over the last several years it's gotten really ugly and scary.

From A. Millar at the Brussels Journal:

Forty Years On: Sleepwalking Toward the Tiber’s Edge

[...] History repeats itself, yes; but history does not repeat itself as we might expect. Today, we are obsessively fighting the last war. Everyone’s enemy is a “racist” and a “fascist.” These terms are invoked by the far-Left, Jack Straw, David Cameron, and even the B.N.P., to describe their opponents. Yet at the same time we see an extreme ideology spilling out from politics and becoming increasing absorbed by the judiciary, police, schools, local councils, etc., all against the common sense of the public. And we also see a rapidly expanding Islamic militancy, occasionally becoming linked to public figures such as Ken Livingstone, and, consequently, accepted by the public.

Free speech – which has been so horribly eroded in Britain – was meant to guard against extremism and the persecution of both individuals and larger groups because of the establishment of some dubious ideology. Today, it would appear, that prosecutions for hate speech are based not on what is said but who is speaking. Protests in support of al-Qaeda are deemed free speech, as is downloading terrorist material and discussing the validity and possibility of carrying out terrorist attacks. Similarly, as think tanks such as the Centre for Social Cohesion and CIVITAS have said, Britain’s governmental and judicial establishments have failed to tackle honor crime, with police, councils, and teachers afraid of being branded racist if they make any attempt.

[...]

Today we are faced with a “multiculturalism” that has eroded British culture and the constant drumbeat of racial “equality” that treats people not as human beings but mere racial blocks. As Rageh Omaar has said in an op-ed piece on Powell’s so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech for The Daily Mail, “Instead of multi-culturalism, we are getting tribalisation,”

[...}

We have reached a point, then, at which racially or culturally distinct ghettos – the unfortunate results of long-term multiculturalism – are mirrored at both lower and higher levels of government and party politics. Moreover, if some young Muslims are surfing the net, and finding inspiration in al-Qaeda and websites peddling Islamic radicalism, so too do we see a similar phenomenon at government level, with, for example, Livingstone now having gained the support of suicide bombing apologist Dr Azzam Tamimi – which he has not rejected. It is remarkable to think that not only Muslims, but Muslim extremists, are now playing an important, if not decisive, role in British politics. Yet, it is not difficult to imagine that Britain fifty years from now will have a political reality not entirely unlike that of Lebanon’s today. We must hope that it does not take the same sort of upheaval – such as Powell predicted for a multicultural Britain – to get there, but such a hope seems to be fading. Two thirds of the residents of Britain now believe immigration will lead to violence. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The article gives many examples of how even the mere accusation of "racism" is used with the force of law to stifle free speech and debate on a multitude of issues, at every level of society.

As "identity politics" grows stronger, so does political correctness and it's concomitant restrictions on free speech. When it dominates as a political force, assimilation stops, and "multiculturalism" becomes more like "tribalism", dividing people and destroying a unifying national identity. This weakens the people as a whole, and is the first step in conquering and controlling them.

Am I mistaken, or did this really start to get very bad in Britain in 1997, when they passed a law making private ownership of handguns illegal for citizens? Crime went up by two thirds, and everything else seemed to start going to shit real fast. If that ever happens in the USA, I believe it will be the beginning of the end.

An unarmed population is completely dependent on government for protection, and must live to serve the government, instead of the government existing to serve them. Read the whole article for the horrific details; there is a lesson in it for us all.


Related Links:

Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism

Did Tony Blair advance a "Culture of Lies"?

What is the Nature of Multiculturalism?

Our Culture, What’s Left Of It


About British gun laws:

England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire

RESULTS ARE IN ON BRITISH GUN LAWS

Britain’s Gun-Control Folly
     

Selective Religious Tolerance: a Leftist Tool

One would think that "Religious Tolerance" would be about showing consideration for all religions, but clearly that is not the case in Europe, as Thomas Landen at the Brussels Journal shows us:

Dispatch from the Eurabian Front: Austria, European Parliament, the Netherlands, Belgium

The Austrian authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years. Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”

The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She also warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Susanne Winter and she was placed under police protection. Today, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter will be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols” (Verhetzung und Herabwürdigung religiöser Symbole). If convicted she may have to serve up to two years in jail for her opinions.

However, Alfred Hrdlicka, the Austrian “artist” who depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted. Nor will he be. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is “incitement to racial hatred.”

Neither has Mr Hrdlicka been threatened by Christian assassins for his “opinions.” The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the former do not aim to kill those who offend them, but the latter do – which is perhaps also why the European authorities fear the radical Muslims and persecute their opponents while they subsidize those who insult Christians. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) The rest of the article talks about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, who have been threatened with death by Muslim fanatics for being critical of Islam. The forces of Europe's multi-culti political correctness are being mustered to deny them protection and effectively silence them and/or force them to leave. Ironically, this emboldens the most violent and threatening Muslims to continue being violent, threatening and intolerant. Why would that behavior be encouraged in a genuinely liberal and tolerant society?

Leftist socialists pretend to be liberal and tolerant, but in reality they are anything but. They are very selective about who and what they support. Any cause they can use against the establishment they support. Everything they do is a means of achieving power; freedom of speech and personal liberty are not values worth protecting for everyone, they are just tools to use selectively in pursuit of political power. The ends justifies the means.

In Turkey, the secular Left opposes the conservative Islamic AKP party. But in Europe, the Left supports Islamists. Why? Because in Europe, Leftists and Islamists have a common enemy they hate; Christian conservatives.

In Iran in the 1970's, the political Left joined forces with the Islamic Right to overthrow the Shah. The Leftists foolishly believed the Islamists would share power with them, and bring about a secular socialist state. Instead, when the Shah was driven out, the Islamists killed or exiled the leaders of the Left and subjugated their followers, under a rigid an intolerant Islamic theocratic state.

Leftists often have self-destructive tendencies, and also fail to learn from their mistakes, repeating them again and again. Even if they won't learn, surely the rest of us can? Their mistakes are a lesson for us all.


Related Links:

Hitler, Islamism and Leftist Liberals...

Political Correctness and Multiculturalism:
The New Tools of "Stealth" Socialism?

Radical Islam, the Western Left, and the
end of democracy; the problems and solutions

     

Have a Happy Muslim Heartburn Day...

Fight sharia: Celebrate Valentine’s Day; Update: Burn, baby, burn

[...] Well, it’s Valentine’s Day once more–and the Religion of Perpetual Outrage is at it again. Around the world, Muslim leaders are working hard to stamp out deadly “Western values” spread by the holiday. Such as men and women hugging each other. This terrorism must be stopped! [...]

Cupid gets the point...



So much for multicultural tolerance.



Yes, we all know that terrorism is what Valentine's Day is all about.
In reality, Muslim holidays like Ashoura are so much nicer...



A loving tradition to pass on to your children...



Gotta start'em young, so the grow up thinking it's normal...



Yes, it IS real blood. Follow the link for more photos and information.
     

Racism & Nazis, Americans & Europeans

There has been a row going on between the "Little Green Footballs" blog and the "Brussels Journal" blog. In short, it seems the former has questioned the latter's affiliation with certain political groups in Europe, and now there are accusations of racism and Nazi affiliation being hurled about, regarding the latter's positions on Islamic immigration in Europe.

I'm not going to jump into the fray, or summarize it here. It looks to me like a falling out between secular and religious conservatives, who agree on many things but also disagree on many others. Now that insults have been hurled, both sides seem to be overreacting, and in their defensiveness each is perhaps tending to oversimplify the views of the other side?

I've often enjoyed Fjordman's articles at the Brussels Journal. He's often written about the abuse of political correctness and Multiculturalism in Europe, and how they are too often used by the political Left as weapons to stifle debate and silence opposition.

Fjordman has written a post about the tiff between the two blogs. If you want to read about it, he has links to LGF too. He also makes some interesting observations about political correctness and racism in the USA. An excerpt:

Little Green Footballs and Racism in the United States

[...] It is a disturbing testimony to the fact that hating whites, still the majority in the USA, is OK, indeed encouraged, in American colleges. In the Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, Robert Spencer quotes “Rachel,” a white American student, who spoke these words to American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: “Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.... Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”

As Yeagley observed, “The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground… When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority… Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?”

Well, my answer to that would be: Americans have been bombarded with accusations of racism, almost exclusively against the European-derived majority, for decades. If I may be so bold as to say so, that’s what I really see when I look at the hysterical overreaction on part of Little Green Footballs regarding “white racism” in Europe, despite the fact that people of European descent are probably among the least racist people on the planet right now.

LGFers base their world-view on the existence of a moderate Islam, which doesn’t exist, and on the existence of a large and rabid network of neo-Nazis in Europe, which also doesn’t exist. Neo-Nazi groups are generally quite marginal, for the very simple reason that people don’t like them. I agree that they should be watched, but they are far down the list of enemies of freedom right now, behind Muslims, Leftists and the European Union. The only theoretical reason why even a fraction of Europeans would embrace real extremist groups would be if they have their backs against the wall and everybody else has abandoned them, which is exactly what we’re trying to avoid. [...]

There's more on his discussion with Charles, and there are lots of links embedded links too. I think it's fine that Charles at LGF asks questions about European political groups; Europe does have an actual Nazi history after all. But how about less political correctness, and more honest discussion about the FACTS?

At any rate I'd like to see this row stop. It's needlessly attracting the attention of groups like CAIR, who are using it to advance their own agendas.


Related Links:

Dr. David Yeagley's website:
www.badeagle.com

And comming to a school near you: the latest edicts from the Thought Police:
There goes the neighborhood

     

Selective Outrage and the Rule of Law

In this essay, Victor David Hanson examines the phenomena of people and groups who disrespect, disregard and work to destroy the rule of law, but who are then upset when it doesn't magically reappear to support THEM:

Hypocrisy That Undermines Civilization

There is only a thin veneer that separates civilization from man's innate barbarity. Some 2,500 years ago the historian Thucydides once warned us about the irony of revolutionaries and insurrectionists destroying this fragile patina of culture, as if they themselves might be exempt from ever wanting it back again.

Yet no sooner, he warned, have such outsiders torn down the system of law than they are in need of it themselves when they assume power and the responsibility of governance. Even the worst terrorist apparently wants his wife and kids to be safe--and able to drink clean water when turning on the faucet. The trick apparently is to blow up the neighborhood's electric pylon while still finding enough light and power to assemble an IED device. [...]

He goes on to give examples of this dynamic in action in Iraq; among the Palestinians; and throughout Muslim cultures generally, in the Middle East and abroad.

He also examines the same thing happening in Mexico:

[...] To facilitate such massive illegal immigration, Mexican officials hector their American counterparts about our supposed illiberality in not letting millions more stream in unchecked. They have even gone so far as to publish a government comic book instructing their own citizens how to cross the American border safely--and in flagrant violation of our laws.

But Mexico has nearly the same problem with its own 600-mile southern border with Guatemala as we do with our own 1,800-mile common boundary with Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of Central and Southern Americans try to cross into Mexico, either to work as cheap laborers or to make their way eventually into the United States as competitors to illegal aliens from Mexico.

In response, Mexico's policy toward illegal immigrants on its southern border is as brutal as America's is humane. Violators are often summarily deported--if they are not first robbed by Mexican officials or beaten and killed by criminal gangs. Mexicans may lecture Americans about our purported sins in trying to secure our border, but they don't seem to care what their own government does to Guatemalans. Again, the irony arises that a government that has abandoned the rule of international law suddenly is worried that another country may be doing to it what it does to others.

What lies behind this abject hypocrisy of first undermining civilization and then demanding that it reappear in the hour of need?

Double standards depend on demanding from United States and Europe a sort of impossible perfection. When such utopianism is not--and never can be--met, cheap accusations of racism, colonialism, and imperialism follow. Such posturing is intended to con the West into feeling guilty, and, with such self-loathing, granting political concessions, relaxing immigration, or handing over more foreign aid. Left unsaid is that such critics of the West will always ignore their own hypocrisy, and, when convenient, destroy civilized norms while expecting someone else to restore them when needed.[...]

(bold emphasis mine) I call it the dishonest side of Multiculturalism at work. So what's to be done about it? Victor has some thoughts about that. Read the whole thing, it's not very long.


Related Links: (From Fjordman at the Brussels Journal blog)

The Great Conversation

[...] It is true that if you cannot define your enemy, your criticism is bound to be vague. But this is part of my point: I, and numerous others with at least average intelligence, have spent a considerable amount of time trying to analyze the doctrines of Multiculturalism. We have found this to be quite challenging, precisely because it is vague, incoherent and doesn’t have any clear philosophical foundation. Multiculturalism seems to be a curious mix of older, Enlightenment ideas such as Rousseau’s “noble savage” and later Marxist ideas, among other things. There are those who claim that it was never supposed to be logically consistent and that we shouldn’t look for any cohesive, rational arguments behind it because there are none. What little can be discerned from its ideas is sometimes quite disturbing, with elements of anti-Western hatred, totalitarian impulses and Utopian ideas involving large-scale social engineering.

But isn’t this alarming? Multiculturalism is now official state policy in many countries, together accounting for hundreds of millions of people. Isn’t it disturbing that millions of people are subject to a radical ideology that is almost impossible to comprehend, and thus to criticize? Many of its proponents seem to know that it cannot be rationally defended, which is why they simply shut critics down with charges of racism and shame them into silence whenever they sense some opposition. In fact, it is now more or less illegal in some countries to criticize it, although it could mean the most massive transformation of our countries in modern history. [...]

On Bureaucracy, Liberty and the Rule of Law

[...] When does the rule of law break down? It breaks down when laws are no longer passed with the consent of free people, when citizens no longer feel that the law is just, when regulations become so numerous that it is virtually impossible even for decent individuals not to break the law on a regular basis and when the authorities are incapable of protecting their country’s borders while criminals rule the streets. It breaks down when the law appears increasingly arbitrary, when it invades the most intimate details of the life of law-abiding citizens while it allows great freedom to criminals. In short, it breaks down when it no longer corresponds to reality and to the sense of justice experienced by ordinary people. [...]

     

Multiculturalism: it isn't your grandfather's Communism

Multiculturalism is supposed to be about tolerance for cultural differences. But too often, its used as a social engineering tool. Tolerance for different cultures isn't itself necessarily a bad thing. I'm not against every aspect of Multiculturalism; what I object to, is the sneaky way it is being used to advance agendas that have nothing to do with tolerance.

Leftists who have failed to bring about their goals through political means have found better methods; accusations of racism, enforced political correctness, immigration issues and the abolishing of borders. Having failed to sufficiently sway the proletariat in Western societies, the left wishes to replace it with a new one, an under-class they can manipulate. Fjordman at the Brussels Journal addresses these ideas and more in detail in his latest article. Some excerpts:

A Communism for the 21st Century

[...] 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.

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

(bold emphasis mine) There's more; how Europe is becoming a laboratory, treating it's citizens like lab rats. Many of the trends that the Multiculturalist elites of Europe have established there are also catching on here, and I fear the same motives are behind them. Let's not let it continue.


Related Link:

Political Correctness and Multiculturalism:
The New Tools of "Stealth" Socialism?