De Bortoli first published the angry essay that turned into Fallaci's
controversial best-seller, "The Rage and the Pride", which described Islam
as oppressive and Arab immigrants in Europe as dirty, foul-mouthed and
bigoted.
She called on Europeans to defend their culture and values instead of
adjusting to immigrants' needs.
"Antimulticulture" wrote in message
news:450a9146$0$7283$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Our Culture, What's Left Of It
> The Mandarins and the Masses
> By Jamie Glazov
> August 31, 2005
>
> FrontPage Magazine: You make the shrewd observation of how
> political correctness engenders evil because of "the violence
> that it does to people's souls by forcing them to say or imply
> what they do not believe, but must not question." Can you talk
> about this a bit?
>
> Theodore Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist
> propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I
> came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda
> was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to
> humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality
> the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they
> are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they
> are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for
> all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to
> co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil
> oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and
> even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to
> control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has
> the same effect and is intended to.
>
> I have heard people who have grown up in former Communist
> countries say that we in the West are at least as brainwashed by
> Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were
> with Communism, perhaps more so. Even in the heyday of the East
> Bloc, there were active dissident groups in these countries. The
> scary thing is, I sometimes believe they are right.
>
> But how is that possible? Don't we have free speech here? And we
> have no Gulag?
>
> The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively
> as we should have. Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet
> Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West,
> and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a
> credible alternative. However, 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
> rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of
> our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic
> terrorism is explained as caused by "poverty, oppression and
> marginalization," a classic, Marxist interpretation.
>
> What happened is that 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 deemed it to be less threatening. The "hard" Marxists had
> intercontinental nuclear missiles and openly said that they
> would "bury" us. The soft Marxists talk about tolerance and may
> seem less threatening, but their goal of overthrowing the evil,
> capitalist West remains the same. In fact, they are more
> dangerous precisely because they hide their true goals under
> different labels. Perhaps we should call it "stealth Socialism"
> instead of soft Socialism.
>
> One of the readers of Fjordman blog once pointed out that we
> never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold
> War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2. He was thinking
> of the former Soviet Union and the countries in Eastern Europe,
> but he should probably have included their Marxist fellow
> travellers, their sympathizers and apologists in the West. We
> never fully confronted the ideology of Marxism, and demonstrated
> that the suffering it caused for hundreds of millions of people
> was a direct result of Marxist ideas. We just assumed that
> Marxism was dead and moved on, allowing many of its ideals to
> mutate into new forms and many of its champions to continue
> their work uninterrupted, sometimes filled with a vengeance and
> a renewed zeal for another assault on the capitalist West.
>
> We are now paying the price for this. Not only has Marxism
> survived, it is thriving and has in some ways grown stronger.
> Leftist ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders
> have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse, their
> critics vilified and demonized. By hiding their intentions under
> labels such as "anti-racism" and "tolerance," Leftists have
> achieved a degree of censorship of public discourse they could
> never have dreamt of had they openly stated that their intention
> was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its
> foundations.
>
> The Left have become ideological orphans after the Cold War, or
> perhaps we should call them ideological mercenaries. Although
> the viable economic alternative to capitalism didn't work out,
> their hatred for this system never subsided, it merely
> transformed into other forms. Multiculturalism is just a
> different word for "divide and conquer," pitting various ethnic
> and cultural groups against each other and destroying the
> coherence of Western society from within.
>
> At the very least, the people living in the former Communist
> countries knew and admitted that they were taking part in a
> gigantic social experiment, and that the media and the
> authorities were serving them propaganda to shore up support for
> this project. Yet in the supposedly free West, we are taking
> part in a gigantic social experiment of Multiculturalism and
> Muslim immigration every bit as radical, utopian and potentially
> dangerous as Communism, seeking to transform our entire society
> from top to bottom, and still we refuse to even acknowledge that
> this is going on.
>
> In Norway, a tiny Scandinavian nation that was until recently
> 99% white and Lutheran Christian, native Norwegians will soon be
> a minority in their own capital city, later in the whole
> country. And still, Norwegian politicians, journalists and
> University professors insist that there is nothing to worry
> about over this. Multiculturalism is nothing new, neither is
> immigration. In fact, our king a century ago was born in
> Denmark, so having a capital city dominated by Pakistanis,
> Kurds, Arabs and Somalis is just business as usual. The most
> massive transformation of the country in a thousand years,
> probably in recorded history, is thus treated as if it were the
> most natural thing in the world. To even hint that there might
> be something wrong about this has been immediately shouted down
> as "racism."
>
> Eric Hoffer has noted that "It is obvious that a proselytizing
> mass movement must break down all existing group ties if it is
> to win a considerable following. The ideal potential convert is
> the individual who stands alone, who has no collective body he
> can blend with and lose himself in and so mask the pettiness,
> meaninglessness and shabbiness of his individual existence.
> Where a mass movement finds the corporate pattern of family,
> tribe, country, etcetera, in a state of disruption and decay, it
> moves in and gathers the harvest. Where it finds the corporate
> pattern in good repair, it must attack and disrupt." This
> corresponds exactly to the behavior of much of the Western Left
> in our age.
>
> In Germany, Hans-Peter Raddatz in his book "Allahs Frauen"
> (Allah's Women) dissects the destructive attitude of
> Multiculturalism that is shared by many civil servants,
> journalists, politicians and lawyers in Germany and the EU. In
> particular, he documents how the German Green Party has a
> program for dismantling and dissolving the Christian
> "Leitkultur," or common culture, that so far has been the
> foundation of Germany and the West. Raddatz thinks that the
> decades of Muslim immigration are used as an instrument for
> breaking down the institutions, norms and ideas that the Left
> has earlier tried to break down through economics.
>
> From powerful positions in the media, public institutions and
> the system of education, these Multiculturalists are working on
> a larger project of renewing a Western civilization that,
> according to them, has failed.
>
> A Norwegian newspaper called Dagens Næringsliv exposed the fact
> that the largest "anti-racist" organization in the country, SOS
> Rasisme, was heavily infiltrated by Communists and extreme
> Leftists. They infiltrated the organization in the late 1980s
> and early '90s, in other words, during the downfall of Communism
> in Eastern Europe. They went directly from Communism to
> Multiculturalism, which should indicate that at least some of
> them viewed Multiculturalism as the continuation of Communism by
> other means. It speaks volumes about the close connection
> between economic Marxism and cultural Marxism. They just have
> different means of reaching the same ends.
>
> Much of the political Left is simply engaged in outing their
> opponents as evil, instead of rationally arguing against their
> ideas. Attaching labels such as "racist" or even "Fascist" to
> anyone criticizing massive immigration or Multiculturalism has
> become so common that Norwegian anti-Islamists have coined a new
> word for it: "Hitling," which could be roughly translated to
> English as "to make like Hitler." The logic behind "hitling" is
> a bit like this: "You have a beard. Adolf Hitler had facial
> hair, too, so you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler liked dogs.
> You have pets, too, you must be like Hitler. Adolf Hitler was a
> vegetarian. You like carrots, you are just like Hitler."
>
> Any "right-winger" can be slimed with such accusations.
> Curiously enough, the reverse is almost never true. Although
> Marxism may have killed 100 million people during the 20th
> century and failed in every single society in which it has ever
> been tried out, there seems to be little stigma attached to
> being a Leftist. The fact that Leftists can get away with this
> and claim to hold the moral high ground amply demonstrates that
> we didn't win the Cold War. We let our guard down after the fall
> of the Berlin Wall and never properly denounced the ideology
> behind it. This is now coming back to haunt us.
>
> One member of an anti-immigration party in Britain stated that
> to be called racist in 21st-century Britain is "the same as
> being branded a witch in the Middle Ages." He's probably right,
> which means that anti-racism has quite literally become a modern
> witch-hunt.
>
> Naomi Klein, Canadian activist and author of the book No Logo,
> is a darling of the Western Left. She claims that the real cause
> of Islamic terrorism is Western racism, traceable back to the
> personal experiences of Sayyid Qutb, theorist of modern Islamic
> Jihad, while in the USA in the late 1940s. "The real problem,"
> she concludes, "is not too much Multiculturalism but too
> little." More Multiculturalism, she claims, "would rob
> terrorists of what has always been their greatest recruitment
> tool: our racism."
>
> Robert Spencer, however, is not too impressed with Klein's logic
> or historical knowledge: "Qutb's world-changing rage?" Is that
> rage really Qutb's? Can modern-day Islamic terrorism really be
> attributed to him, and to his experience of racism in Colorado?
> One would expect that if that were so, there would be no
> evidence of political or violent Islam dating from before 1948.
> But in fact the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Qutb was part, was
> founded not in 1948 but in 1928, and not by Qutb, but by Hasan
> Al-Banna. It was Al-Banna, not Qutb, who wrote: "In [Muslim]
> Tradition, there is a clear indication of the obligation to
> fight the People of the Book [that is, Jews and Christians], and
> of the fact that God doubles the reward of those who fight them.
> Jihad is not against polytheists alone, but against all who do
> not embrace Islam."
>
> Paul Berman does not share Klein's interpretation, either.
> According to him, Qutb's book from the 1940's, Social Justice
> and Islam,' shows that, even before his voyage to the USA, Qutb
> "was pretty well set in his Islamic fundamentalism," although it
> may have gotten worse after his meetings with Western
> "immorality." According to Berman, the truly dangerous element
> in American life, in Sayyid Qutb's estimation, "was not
> capitalism or foreign policy or racism or the unfortunate cult
> of women's independence. The truly dangerous element lay in
> America's separation of church and state - the modern political
> legacy of Christianity's ancient division between the sacred and
> the secular."
>
> Islam's true champions had to gather themselves together into
> what Qutb in his book Milestones called a vanguard. This
> vanguard of true Muslims was going to resurrect the caliphate
> and take Islam to all the world, just as Muhammad had done."
> Both Milestones and parts of Qutb's perhaps most important work,
> In the Shade of the Qur'an, are available online in English. In
> Milestones, he writes that Jihad will continue until all of the
> world answers to Islam, that "Islam came into this world to
> establish God's rule on God's earth." "Islam has a right to
> remove all those obstacles which are in its path," it "has the
> right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and
> traditions" around the world that are in opposition to this.
> "God's rule on earth can be established only through the Islamic
> system." What does this have to do with Western racism? Why did
> Jihad start a thousand years before Western colonialism ever
> touched Islamic lands? What about the tens of millions of people
> massacred in India because of Islamic Jihad? Was that due to
> Western racism, too? Naomi Klein doesn't say, she just blames
> the West. And she is far from the only one suffering from this
> delusion.
>
> Commenting on the Jihad riots in France in the fall of 2005,
> philosopher Alain Finkielkraut stated: "In France, they would
> like very much to reduce these riots to their social dimension,
> to see them as a revolt of youths from the suburbs against their
> situation, against the discrimination they suffer from, against
> the unemployment. The problem is that most of these youths are
> blacks or Arabs, with a Muslim identity. Look, in France there
> are also other immigrants whose situation is difficult -
> Chinese, Vietnamese, Portuguese - and they're not taking part in
> the riots. Therefore, it is clear that this is a revolt with an
> ethno-religious character. These people were treated like
> rebels, like revolutionaries. (.) They're 'interesting.' They're
> 'the wretched of the earth.' "Imagine for a moment that they
> were whites, like in Rostock in Germany. Right away, everyone
> would have said: 'Fascism won't be tolerated.' When an Arab
> torches a school, it's rebellion. When a white guy does it, it's
> fascism. Evil is evil, no matter what color it is."
>
> In an interview with Danish weekly Weekendavisen, Finkielkraut
> said that: "Racism is the only thing that can still arouse anger
> among the intellectuals, the journalists and people in the
> entertainment business, in other words, the elites. Culture and
> religion have collapsed, only anti-racism is left. And it
> functions like an intolerant and inhumane idolatry." "A leader
> from one of the organizations against racism had the nerve to
> refer to the actions of the police in the Parisian suburbs as
> 'ethnic cleansing.' That kind of expression used about the
> French situation indicates a deliberate manipulation of the
> language. Unfortunately, these insane lies have convinced the
> public that the destruction in the suburbs should be viewed as a
> protest against exclusion and racism." "I think that 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."
>
> Maybe the French have fallen prey to the nihilism of Jean-Paul
> Sartre? Roger Scruton wrote about his continued influence in The
> Spectator: "The French have not recovered from Sartre and
> perhaps never will. For they have had to live with an
> intellectual establishment that has consistently repudiated the
> two things that hold the country together: Christianity and the
> idea of France. The anti-bourgeois posture of the left-bank
> intellectual has entered the political process, and given rise
> to an elite for whom nothing is certain save the repudiation of
> the national idea. It is thanks to this elite that the mad
> project of European Union has become indelibly inscribed in the
> French political process, even though the people of France
> reject it. It is thanks to this elite that the mass immigration
> into France of unassimilable Muslim communities has been both
> encouraged and subsidised. It is thanks to this elite that
> socialism has been so firmly embedded in the French state that
> no one now can reform it." "Man cannot live by negation alone."
>
> Karl Marx himself has stated that "The meaning of peace is the
> absence of opposition to socialism," a sentiment that
> corresponds almost exactly to the Islamic idea that "peace"
> means the absence of opposition to Islamic rule. Cultural
> Marxism - aka Political Correctness - and Islam share the same
> totalitarian outlook and instinctively agree in their opposition
> to free discussion, and in the idea that freedom of speech must
> be curtailed when it is "offensive" to certain groups.
>
> Former Muslim Ali Sina notes that "there is very little
> difference between the Left and Islam. What is lacking in both
> these creeds is the adherence to the Golden Rule. Just as for
> Muslims, everything Islamic is a priori right and good and
> everything un-Islamic is a priori wrong and evil, for the Left,
> everything leftist is a priori oppressed and good and everything
> rightist is a priori oppressor and evil. Facts don't matter.
> Justice is determined by who you are and not by what you have
> done." "Political correctness is an intellectual sickness. It
> means expediently lying when telling the truth is not expedient.
> This practice is so widespread and so common that it is
> considered to be normal."
>
> Sina also quotes historian Christopher Dawson in writing: "It is
> easy enough for the individual to adopt a negative attitude of
> critical skepticism. But if society as a whole abandons all
> positive beliefs, it is powerless to resist the disintegrating
> effects of selfishness and private interest. Every society rests
> in the last resort on the recognition of common principles and
> common ideals, and if it makes no moral or spiritual appeal to
> the loyalty of its members, it must inevitably fall to pieces."
> This will be the end result of Multiculturalism, and one
> suspects that this was the point of it to begin with.
>
> Another former Muslim, writer Ibn Warraq, visited Denmark to
> launch his book Why I am not a Muslim. In an interview, Ibn
> Warraq stated that especially among the Left there is a
> post-colonial guilt complex that constitutes an almost
> insuperable obstacle to any criticism of Islam and Third World
> cultures. The Left have thus put their own, universal values
> aside in favor of a dangerous relativism. Ibn Warraq pointed out
> that more than fifty years after the West left its colonies in
> the Third World, Leftists are still blaming all the ills of
> Africa and the Middle East on the former colonial powers, while
> the same left-wingers only ten years after the fall of Communism
> blamed Russia's troubles on unrestrained capitalism. "The Left
> refuses to seek answers elsewhere. At the same time they are,
> because of Marx, accustomed to look for economic explanations to
> everything. Consequently, they seek the explanation to Islamic
> terrorism in the economic situation. But it is a great mystery
> to me how 200 dead people in Madrid are supposed to help the
> poor in the Islamic world."
>
> Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, who has personal
> experience with living under Socialism, warns that it may not be
> as dead as many seem to think: "We can probably confidently say
> that its "hard version" - communism - is over." However,
> "fifteen years after the collapse of communism I am afraid, more
> than at the beginning of its softer (or weaker) version, of
> social-democratism, which has become - under different names,
> e.g. the welfare state - the dominant model of the economic and
> social system of current Western civilization. It is based on
> big and patronizing government, on extensive regulating of human
> behavior, and on large-scale income redistribution." "The
> explicit socialism has lost its appeal and we should not have it
> as the main rival to our ideas today."
>
> Klaus warns that illiberal ideas are making a comeback in
> different shapes: "These ideas are, however, in many respects
> similar to it. There is always a limiting (or constraining) of
> human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering,
> there is always an immodest "enforcement of a good" by those who
> are anointed (Thomas Sowell) on others against their will." "The
> current threats to liberty may use different 'hats', they may
> better hide their real nature, they may be more sophisticated
> than before, but they are - in principle - the same as always."
>
> "I have in mind environmentalism (with its Earth First, not
> Freedom First principle), radical humanrightism (based - as de
> Jasay precisely argues - on not distinguishing rights and
> rightism), ideology of 'civic society' (or communitarism), which
> is nothing less than one version of post-Marxist collectivism
> which wants privileges for organized groups, and in consequence,
> a refeudalization of society. I also have in mind
> multiculturalism, feminism, apolitical technocratism (based on
> the resentment against politics and politicians),
> internationalism (and especially its European variant called
> Europeanism) and a rapidly growing phenomenon I call NGOism."
>
> The EUSSR
>
> Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human
> rights activist. He was one of the first to expose the use of
> psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the
> USSR, and spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now
> living in England, he warns against some of the same
> anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU,
> which he views as a heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined
> in on protests against the BBC's compulsory TV licence, which he
> considers "such a medieval arrangement I simply must protest
> against it" "The British people are being forced to pay money to
> a corporation which suppresses free speech - publicising views
> they don't necessarily agree with." He has blasted the BBC for
> their "bias and propaganda," especially on stories related to
> the EU or the Middle East. "I would like the BBC to become the
> KGB successors in imprisoning me for demanding freedom of
> speech. Nothing would expose them more for what they are."
>
> He is not the only one who is tired of what he thinks is the
> Leftist bias of the BBC. Michael Gove, a Conservative MP, and
> political commentator Mark Dooley complain about lopsided
> coverage of certain issues: "Take, for example, the BBC's
> coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in
> 2002, he was lauded as an "icon" and a "hero," but no mention
> was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal
> suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel
> assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin,
> in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as "polite, charming and
> witty, a deeply religious man." This despite the fact that under
> Yassin's guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds." "A soft left
> worldview influences too much of what the corporation produces.
> We have a right to expect more honesty from the broadcasting
> service we are being asked to pay for."
>
> Vladimir Bukovsky thinks that the West lost the Cold War. "There
> were no Nuremberg-type trials in Moscow. Why? Because while we
> won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context
> of ideas. The West stopped one day too soon, just like in Desert
> Storm. Just imagine the Allies in 1945 being satisfied with some
> kind of Perestroika in Nazi Germany - instead of unconditional
> surrender. What would have been the situation in Europe then, to
> say nothing of Germany? All former Nazi collaborators would have
> remained in power, albeit under a new disguise. This is exactly
> what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991." "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." "It is
> no surprise, therefore, that despite the defeat of communism,
> the radical Left in the West still arrogates the moral high
> ground to itself."
>
> "When the Nazis lost the Second World War, racial hatred was
> discredited. When the Soviets lost the Cold War, the tenet of
> class hatred remained as popular as ever." Bukovsky argues that
> while there might have been a Western military victory,
> Socialism still prevailed as a popular idea ideologically
> throughout the world. He writes: "Having failed to finish off
> conclusively the communist system, we are now in danger of
> integrating the resulting monster into our world. It may not be
> called communism anymore, but it retained many of its dangerous
> characteristics. . . .Until the Nuremberg-style tribunal passes
> its judgement on all the crimes committed by communism, it is
> not dead and the war is not over."
>
> Karl Marx
>
> Cultural Marxism has roots as far back as the 1920s, when some
> Socialist thinkers advocated attacking the cultural base of
> Western civilization to pave the way for the Socialist
> transition. Cultural Marxism is thus not something "new." It has
> coexisted with economic Marxism for generations, but it received
> a great boost in the West from the 1960s and 70s onwards. As the
> Soviet Union fell apart and China embraced capitalism, the
> economic Marxists joined in on the "cultural" train, too, as it
> was now the only game in town. They don't have a viable
> alternative to present, but they don't care. They truly believe
> that we, the West, are so evil and exploitative that literally
> anything would be better, even the Islamic Caliphate.
>
> The Free Congress Foundation has an interesting booklet online
> called Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology,
> edited by William S. Lind. According to Lind, Political
> Correctness "wants to change behavior, thought, even the words
> we use. To a significant extent, it already has." "Whoever or
> whatever controls language also controls thought." "Political
> Correctness" is in fact cultural Marxism. The effort to
> translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with
> the student rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the
> 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.
>
> In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an institute
> devoted to making the translation, the Institute of Social
> Research (later known as the Frankfurt School). One of its
> founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as answering the
> question, "Who shall save us from Western Civilization?" Lind
> thinks there are major parallels between classical and cultural
> Marxism: "Both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
> nature of Political Correctness can be seen on [University]
> campuses where 'PC' has taken over the college: freedom of
> speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated."
> "Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural Marxism has filled
> its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same:
> a society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the
> state."
>
> "Just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
> workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e.,
> the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural
> Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good," for
> instance feminist women. Similarly, "white males are determined
> automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the
> bourgeoisie in economic Marxism." Both economic and cultural
> Marxism "have a method of analysis that automatically gives the
> answers they want. For the classical Marxist, it's Marxist
> economics. For the cultural Marxist, it's deconstruction.
> Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning
> from it and re-inserts any meaning desired."
>
> Raymond V. Raehn agrees with Lind that "Political Correctness is
> Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression,
> thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and,
> ultimately, a totalitarian state." According to him, "Gramsci
> envisioned a long march through the society's institutions,
> including the government, the judiciary, the military, the
> schools and the media." "He also concluded that so long as the
> workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to
> revolutionary appeals." Another one of the early cultural
> Marxists, Georg Lukacs, noted that "Such a worldwide overturning
> of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old
> values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries." At
> a meeting in Germany in 1923, "Lukacs proposed the concept of
> inducing "Cultural Pessimism" in order to increase the state of
> hopelessness and alienation in the people of the West as a
> necessary prerequisite for revolution."
>
> William S. Lind points out that this cultural Marxism had its
> beginnings after the Marxist Revolution in Russia in 1917 failed
> to take roots in other countries. Marxists tried to analyze the
> reasons for this, and found them in Western civilization and
> culture itself. "Gramsci said the workers will never see their
> true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are
> freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian
> religion - that they are blinded by culture and religion to
> their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most
> brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919,
> "Who will save us from Western Civilization?"
>
> John Fonte describes how this cultural war is now being played
> out in the USA in his powerful piece "Why There Is A Culture
> War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America." According to him,
> "beneath the surface of American politics an intense ideological
> struggle is being waged between two competing worldviews. I will
> call these "Gramscian" and "Tocquevillian" after the
> intellectuals who authored the warring ideas - the
> twentieth-century Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci, and, of
> course, the nineteenth-century French intellectual Alexis de
> Tocqueville. The stakes in the battle between the intellectual
> heirs of these two men are no less than what kind of country the
> United States will be in decades to come."
>
> Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Marxist intellectual and
> politician, "believed that it was necessary first to
> delegitimize the dominant belief systems of the predominant
> groups and to create a "counter-hegemony" (i.e., a new system of
> values for the subordinate groups) before the marginalized could
> be empowered. Moreover, because hegemonic values permeate all
> spheres of civil society - schools, churches, the media,
> voluntary associations - civil society itself, he argued, is the
> great battleground in the struggle for hegemony, the "war of
> position." From this point, too, followed a corollary for which
> Gramsci should be known (and which is echoed in the feminist
> slogan) - that all life is "political." Thus, private life, the
> work place, religion, philosophy, art, and literature, and civil
> society, in general, are contested battlegrounds in the struggle
> to achieve societal transformation."
>
> This, according to Fonte, "is the very core of the
> Gramscian-Hegelian world view - group-based morality, or the
> idea that what is moral is what serves the interests of
> "oppressed" or "marginalized" ethnic, racial, and gender
> groups." "The concept of 'internalized oppression' is the same
> as the Hegelian-Marxist notion of 'false consciousness,' in
> which people in the subordinate groups 'internalize'(and thus
> accept) the values and ways of thinking of their oppressors in
> the dominant groups." "This is classic Hegelian-Marxist thinking
> - actions (including free speech) that 'objectively' harm people
> in a subordinate class are unjust (and should be outlawed)."
>
> He tracks how the ideas of Gramsci and cultural Marxists have
> spread throughout Western academia. Law professor Catharine
> MacKinnon writes in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State
> (1989), "The rule of law and the rule of men are one thing,
> indivisible," because "State power, embodied in law, exists
> throughout society as male power." Furthermore, "Male power is
> systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the
> regime." MacKinnon has argued that .ual harassment is
> essentially an issue of power exercised by the dominant over the
> subordinate group." At an academic conference sponsored by the
> University of Nebraska, "the attendees articulated the view that
> 'White students desperately need formal "training" in racial and
> cultural awareness. The moral goal of such training should
> override white notions of privacy and individualism.'"
>
> This can sometimes amount to virtual brainwashing disguised as
> critical thinking. Fonte mentions that at Columbia University,
> "new students are encouraged to get rid of 'their own social and
> personal beliefs that foster inequality.' To accomplish this,
> the assistant dean for freshmen, Katherine Balmer, insists that
> 'training' is needed. At the end of freshmen orientation at Bryn
> Mawr in the early 1990s, according to the school program,
> students were 'breaking free' of 'the cycle of oppression' and
> becoming 'change agents.' Syracuse University's multicultural
> program is designed to teach students that they live 'in a world
> impacted by various oppression issues, including racism.'"
>
> John Fonte thinks that the primary resistance to the advance of
> cultural Marxism in the USA comes from an opposing quarter he
> dubs "contemporary Tocquevillianism." "Its representatives take
> Alexis de Tocqueville's essentially empirical description of
> American exceptionalism and celebrate the traits of this
> exceptionalism as normative values to be embraced." As
> Tocqueville noted in the 1830s, Americans today are "just as in
> Tocqueville's time, are much more individualistic, religious,
> and patriotic than the people of any other comparably advanced
> nation." "What was particularly exceptional for Tocqueville (and
> contemporary Tocquevillians) is the singular American path to
> modernity. Unlike other modernists, Americans combined strong
> religious and patriotic beliefs with dynamic, restless
> entrepreneurial energy that emphasized equality of individual
> opportunity and eschewed hierarchical and ascriptive group
> affiliations."
>
> This battle is now being played out in most American public
> institutions. "Tocquevillians and Gramscians clash on almost
> everything that matters. Tocquevillians believe that there are
> objective moral truths applicable to all people at all times.
> Gramscians believe that moral 'truths' are subjective and depend
> upon historical circumstances. Tocquevillians believe in
> personal responsibility. Gramscians believe that 'the personal
> is political.' In the final analysis, Tocquevillians favor the
> transmission of the American regime; Gramscians, its
> transformation."
>
> "While economic Marxism appears to be dead, the Hegelian variety
> articulated by Gramsci and others has not only survived the fall
> of the Berlin Wall, but also gone on to challenge the American
> republic at the level of its most cherished ideas. For more than
> two centuries America has been an 'exceptional' nation, one
> whose restless entrepreneurial dynamism has been tempered by
> patriotism and a strong religious-cultural core. The ultimate
> triumph of Gramscianism would mean the end of this very
> 'exceptionalism.' America would at last become Europeanized:
> statist, thoroughly secular, post-patriotic, and concerned with
> group hierarchies and group rights in which the idea of equality
> before the law as traditionally understood by Americans would
> finally be abandoned. Beneath the surface of our seemingly
> placid times, the ideological, political, and historical stakes
> are enormous."
>
> Britain's Anthony Browne writes in The Retreat of Reason of how
> the Politically Correct are more intolerant of dissent than
> traditional liberals or conservatives, since Liberals of earlier
> times "accepted unorthodoxy as normal. Indeed the right to
> differ was a datum of classical liberalism. The Politically
> Correct do not give that right a high priority. It distresses
> their programmed minds. Those who do not conform should be
> ignored, silenced or vilified. There is a kind of soft
> totalitarianism about Political Correctness." "Because the
> politically correct believe they are not just on the side of
> right, but of virtue, it follows that those they are opposed to
> are not just wrong, but malign.
>
> In the PC mind, the pursuit of virtue entitles them to curtail
> the malign views of those they disagree with." "People who
> transgress politically correct beliefs are seen not just as
> wrong, to be debated with, but evil, to be condemned, silenced
> and spurned." "The rise of political correctness represents an
> assault on both reason and liberal democracy." Browne defines
> Political Correctness as "an ideology that classifies certain
> groups of people as victims in need of protection from
> criticism, and which makes believers feel that no dissent should
> be tolerated." He also warns that "Good intentions pave the road
> to hell. The world is not short of good intentions, but it is
> too often short of good reasoning."
>
> However, Anthony Browne focuses more in the geopolitical
> situation to explain the rise of PC than on Marxist strategies:
> "Political correctness is essentially the product of a powerful
> but decadent civilisation which feels secure enough to forego
> reasoning for emoting, and to subjugate truth to goodness.
> However, the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, and those
> that followed in Bali, Madrid and Beslan, have led to a sense of
> vulnerability that have made people far more hard-headed about
> the real benefits and drawbacks of Western civilisation."
>
> "To some extent, the rise of the eastern powers, China and
> India, will ensure in coming decades that western guilt will
> shrivel: finally having equal powers to compare ourselves to,
> the West will no longer feel inclined to indulge in
> self-loathing, but will seek to reaffirm its sense of identity.
> (.) in the long-run of history, political correctness will be
> seen as an aberration in Western thought. The product of the
> uniquely unchallenged position of the West and its unrivalled
> affluence, the comparative decline of the West compared to the
> East is likely to spell the demise of political correctness."
>
> Lee Harris in his article "Why Isn't Socialism Dead?" ponders
> whether Socialism isn't dead because Socialism can't die. The
> Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto, has argued in his book,
> The Mystery of Capital, that the failure of the various
> socialist experiments of the twentieth century has left mankind
> with only one rational choice about which economic system to go
> with, namely, capitalism. However, says Harris, "the
> revolutionary socialist's life is transformed because he accepts
> the myth that one day socialism will triumph, and justice for
> all will prevail." Thus there is "an...analogy between religion
> and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the
> apprenticeship, preparation, and even the reconstruction of the
> individual - a gigantic task." "It may well be that socialism
> isn't dead because socialism cannot die. Who doesn't want to see
> the wicked and the arrogant put in their place? Who among the
> downtrodden and the dispossessed can fail to be stirred by the
> promise of a world in which all men are equal, and each has what
> he needs?"
>
> Maybe Socialism is a bit like the flu: It keeps mutating, and as
> soon as your immune system has defeated one strain, it changes
> just enough so that your body does not recognize it and then
> mounts another attack.
>
> Political Correctness can reach absurd levels. Early in June
> 2006, Canadian police arrested a group of men suspected of
> planning terror attacks. The group was alleged to have been
> "well-advanced on its plan" to attack a number of Canadian
> institutions, among them the Parliament of Canada, including a
> possible beheading of the Prime Minister, and Toronto's subway.
> However, the lead paragraph of newspaper Toronto Star's story on
> the arrests was: "In investigators' offices, an intricate graph
> plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with
> being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one
> wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common
> denominator."
>
> Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Mike
> McDonell said that the suspects were all Canadian residents and
> the majority were citizens. "They represent the broad strata of
> our community. Some are students, some are employed, some are
> unemployed," he said. However, there was one common denominator
> for the suspects that wasn't mentioned: They were all Muslims.
> The front page article in the New York Times (June 4), too, was
> a study in how to avoid using the dreaded "M" word. The
> terrorist suspects were referred to as "Ontario residents,"
> "Canadian residents," "the group," "mainly of South Asian
> descent" or "good people." Everything conceivable, just not as
> "Muslims."
>
> Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair noted proudly during the press
> conference following the arrests, "I would remind you that there
> was not one single reference made by law enforcement to Muslim
> or Muslim community." Before launching the anti-terror raids,
> Canadian police received "sensitivity training" and were
> carefully instructed in Islamic traditions such as handling the
> Koran, the use of prayer mats, and blowing oneself up in the
> course of an arrest. As Charles Johnson of blog Little Green
> Footballs noted: "Do the Canadian police extend such
> considerations to Christian, Jewish, Hindu or other faiths?
>
> If they don't, then the Moslems have already won important
> recognition as a 'special' people." Commenting on the arrests,
> the Globe and Mail stated that "It may have been the most
> politically correct terrorism bust in history." Canada's secret
> security apparatus had been "putting serious effort into
> softening its image" among Muslims for much of the previous
> years.
>
> The federal government in Canada was considering changes to the
> Anti-Terrorism Act to make it clear that police and security
> agents did not engage in religious profiling. The Calgary Sun
> interviewed a Canadian criminologist, Professor Mahfooz Kanwar,
> who stated that "Multiculturalism has been bad for unity in
> Canada. It ghettoizes people, makes them believe, wrongly, that
> isolating themselves and not adapting to their new society is
> OK. It is not." "Political correctness threatens us because we
> can't fight something we refuse to label and understand." Kanwar
> said the amount of political correctness during the arrests of
> 17 Muslims in the Toronto area was "sickening." "Political
> correctness has gone too far. Political correctness threatens
> our society," said the Pakistani-born Kanwar. "It is the
> responsibility of the minorities to adjust to the majority, not
> the other way around," added Kanwar. Meanwhile, the Canadian
> Islamic Congress blamed the Canadian government for not
> showering enough money on the problem. They wanted more funding
> for research "to scientifically diagnose problems and devise
> solutions."
>
> They also wanted a nation-wide "Smart Integration program,"
> whatever that means. Given the fact that Muslims in Canada had
> quite recently been pushing for the partial implementation of
> sharia laws in the country, one would suspect that "smart
> integration" would mean that non-Muslims should demonstrate a
> little more appeasement. After all, if Canadian authorities
> listen to the advice of their compatriot Naomi Klein, these
> planned mass-killings of Canadian civilians were all due to
> Canadian racism and because the country wasn't Multicultural
> enough. Muslims want to kill Canadians, Canadians smile back,
> tell them how much they "respect" them and ask what more they
> can do to please them.
>
> This is what Political Correctness leads to in the end. It's not
> funny and it's not a joke. Political Correctness kills. It has
> already killed thousands of Western civilians, and if left
> unchecked it may soon kill entire nations or, in the case of
> Europe, entire continents.
>
> As I have stated before, Islam is only a secondary infection,
> one that we could otherwise have had the strength to withstand.
> Cultural Marxism has weakened the West and made us ripe for a
> takeover. It is cultural AIDS, eating away at our immune system
> until it is too weak to resist Islamic infiltration attempts. It
> must be destroyed, before it destroys us all.
>
> The Leftist-Islamic alliance will have profound consequences.
> Either they will defeat the West, or they will both go down in
> the fall. We never really won the Cold War as decisively as we
> should have done. Marxism was allowed to endure, and mount
> another attack on us by stealth and proxy. However, this
> flirting with Muslims could potentially prove more devastating
> to Marxists than the fall of the Berlin Wall.
>
> As William S. Lind points out: "While the hour is late, the
> battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political
> Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As
> that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At
> present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself.
> Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which
> should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its
> camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of
> "sensitivity," "tolerance" and "multiculturalism."
>
> Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job.
> Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an
> anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western
> civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of
> the battle has already been won.
>
> --
> Antimulticulture
> "Bring Back Democracy!..."
>
> Newsboard:
> http://www.gossiping.net/phpBB2/?mforum=newsboard
>
> http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
> Unite Against Multicult'ism!
>
> "Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"
>
> http://www.alphalink.com.au/~eureka/mccorm.htm
> Asianisation of Australia: The Grand Plan
>
>
>
>
|