About a week ago the Turkish president made the claim that if the EU rejected Turkey’s application for EU membership, it would just prove that we’re “Islamophobic”. There couldn’t possibly be any other reason for rejecting their application. It must surely be that reason, just because the Turkish president said so. The article can be read here.
Of course anyone with any common sense should know this is completely absurd. Turkey isn’t even a European country. Sure, a tiny part of it is technically on the continent (I’m not going to deny that), but you may as well say that Britain is part of South America because of the Falklands if you’re going by that logic. If we allow one non European country into the EU, it sets a precedent for other non European countries to demand access and leech off the rest of us and of course whitey, being the castrated wimp that he is, probably would let them all in, for fear of looking intolerant or something.
However beyond geography, there are plenty of other more important reason why Turkey has no business “enriching” the EU with their presence.
Turkey has open borders with other Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Iran, and Iraq. If we opened up our borders to Turkey, we’d be opening up our borders to those countries as well. Do we really want to make it that easy for ISIS types to get into Europe?
Turkey’s population (about 78 million) is larger than that of any EU country (apart from Germany at about 80 million). We can’t absorb that many new migrants at once. We just can’t.
Turkey (while better than most Islamic countries) still has a human rights record that isn’t up to EU standards. Unfair trials, lack of freedom for the press, lack of protection for minorities etc, are issues that have no place in the EU.
Culturally, they’re far too different from us. As I’ve stated before, multiculturalism just doesn’t work, unless the cultures are similar enough to overlap enough to make it work. Even though the EU is full of diverse cultures, we still share enough history and tradition to bind us all together. Whether it be the legacy of the Roman Empire, Christianity, the Middle ages, the Renaissance, the industrial revolution etc, there is a common bond that binds us. Turkey has none of that and from the time of the Ottoman Empire, right up until the present, it has always been an outsider.
Of course none of these reasons matter to the Turkish president. It’s all just Islamophobia. This just proves an obvious reality. All these terms like Racist, Sexist, Homophobe, Islamophobe etc, are just being overused and abused by people who just want to silence all opposition to them and bully people into accepting what they want. Personally, I think they can go fuck themselves. If their only argument is to name-call those who disagree with them, then as far as I’m concerned, they’ve already lost. These words only have power if we let them have power. If someone tells me that I’m an Islamophobe because I oppose the obvious insanity of letting the Turks join the EU, my response to that is going to be “Yeah…and?”
Here is a 20 minute preview of an upcoming documentary regarding the ongoing genocide of white people around the world. I strongly suggest watching the whole thing all the way through and doing so with an open mind and not just responding the way we have been conditioned to think (ie. it’s just racist propaganda put out by low IQ psychos who hate people who look different). I know this is a touchy subject, but I wouldn’t be sharing this if I didn’t think it was important. I’d like to think that no matter how much brainwashing we have all been subjected to that ultimately, our survival instincts are still in tact and will tell us that what this video is discussing is very real.
I know when people see the term “Genocide” they naturally think of events like the Holocaust or Rwanda in 1994 (ie, large scale murders), and so won’t consider what’s happening to us a genocide. However, if we look at the UN definition of genocide, we see an entirely different story. Just to take a few examples.
Propaganda campaigns and fabrications about the targeted group used to justify acts against a targeted group by use of dominant, controlled media or “mirror politics”
The video deals with a few examples of this, but if I can add one of my own, we now have college courses on “The problem with Whiteness”. That’s a blatant example of the demonising of white people.
The destruction of or attacks on cultural and religious property and symbols of the targeted group that may be designed to annihilate the historic presence of the group or groups;
Often, people can’t even display their country’s flag in their own country, for fear of offending immigrants. Why these immigrants are in a country whose flag offends them is never explained. Of course Christianity, the dominant religion of the West for centuries has been severely undermined and those who still cling on to it, are generally ridiculed as being backwards in their beliefs.
Other practices designed to complete the exclusion of targeted group from social/political life.
So called “positive discrimination” which gives minorities unfair advantages in certain endeavours than the majority group.
The fact of the matter is, I don’t have any problems with other cultures or races. I just think we have as much right to preserve our own as anyone else does. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, and I would hope that others would see things the same way.
In my last post I discussed the ridiculous Guardian article that tried to claim that Cultural Marxism is nothing more than an insane conspiracy theory used by far right lunatics as an excuse to complain about every single thing that they hate. In that article, the author laid out genuine historical facts that anyone could confirm as being true just from 2 minutes on Google. Instead, the author tried to pass them off as being false. The question is, why would anyone be stupid enough to lie so blatantly and unashamedly? The reality is, it’s not stupid at all. It’s actually a very effective propaganda technique, one that Hitler himself was quite familiar with.
Extract taken from Mein Kampf
All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.
Essentially what he was saying is that telling a lie that is so completely ridiculous and unbelievable is much more effective than telling small lies, because of the way the mind of the average person works. We all lie once in a while and are used to being lied to, but generally speaking, these lies are small. However, small as they are, we still fear the consequences of being found out, either because we’ll be punished in some way, or we’ll lose face in front of others. Shame is a powerful deterrent.
The idea that anyone would have the audacity to distort reality so blatantly and unashamedly is a concept that most of us are unable to get our heads around because we project our own values onto others. So when people read The Guardian article and (assuming they bother to actually research the concepts it was discussing) and see that the information, so readily available contradicts what the article says, it becomes difficult for them to process. How could someone blatantly lie in a public forum like that? The only possible explanation that is acceptable is that perhaps he isn’t lying at all, and that all the contradictory information is wrong in some way. He must be better informed on the topic than all of us, hence why he’s so confident to say these things in the face of overwhelming amounts of information to the contrary. Therefore, we should agree with what he’s saying and ignore all the information that contradicts him, or else we’ll look stupid and be ridiculed as well.
And so, that’s how The Big Lie works. There’s plenty of other examples of it happening as we speak. If I can, I’d like to refer back to the Michael Brown protests as an obvious example. Despite the fact that all evidence suggests that the cop, Darren Wilson’s version of events is true (meaning, he shot Michael Brown in self defence), we still have people in the media claiming that it was a cold blooded racially motivated murder of a defenceless innocent black “child” by a white man, because their agenda is to stir shit up. People buy into it because it’s shoved down their throats constantly and they can’t comprehend the idea that such blatant lies are being told. As far as they’re concerned, surely, Darren Wilson wasn’t charged with murder because of his white privilege (another example of The Big Lie) and a system that favours whites over blacks. It couldn’t possibly be because he was innocent. No, that couldn’t be it.
Trust your instincts folks. If it feels like a big lie and all visible evidence suggests that it is a big lie, then don’t assume that it’s the truth, just because they’re confident enough to put it out there without feeling any shame.
As anyone who has been a frequent reader of this blog will have noticed, a term that I have used time and time again is “Cultural Marxism”. It seems as if coincidentally enough, the term itself is becoming more and more well known. I’d put this down to the fact that like me, many other people are waking up to the obvious propaganda that the mainstream media are putting out, because they know damn well that what they’re being told doesn’t match up with what they’re actually experiencing in real life. So these people turn to alternative media sources for their information, they find alternative views that make more sense than what they were hearing before and in the process, they’re opened up to new concepts that they had never known about before, yet have experienced their whole life. Cultural Marxism is one such concept.
Seeing the writing on the wall and being perceptive enough to realise how damaging the internet is to their stranglehold on information supply, the mainstream media are doing what they do best. They are using their propaganda techniques to try and discredit these alternative views before they can convert anyone else. The latest example I can see comes from the gutter tier publication know as The Guardian. Lets just be blunt about it. We all rightly ridicule Fox News for their obviously biased reporting on matters. However, the likes of The Guardian is every bit as biased as Fox News, albeit on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Finding fair and balanced reporting on either is about as likely as finding a unicorn.
I came across a Guardian article today which tries to hide the truth about Cultural Marxism in plain sight for its readers. It gives a very biased definition of what it is and tries to make it all out to be an insane conspiracy theory that shouldn’t be taken seriously. Straight away it goes on the attack, using terms such as ” fantasy life of the contemporary right” as if anyone who believes in it is just a tinfoil hat wearing nutjob.
The author then goes on to lay out actual historical facts and tries to dismiss them as all being part of this right-wing “fantasy” that he’s discussing. This is completely ridiculous. He’s literally saying the exact opposite of what is true even though a simple google search would prove him wrong. The existence of the Frankfurt School of critical theory is an historical fact. It’s historical fact that most of it’s leading members were Jews who were run out of Nazi Germany and fled to America. What is open to interpretation is how much influence they gained in America in the following decades, but it’s obvious to anyone who actually does read up on their history that from the 1960s onwards, a lot of people in America (the baby boomer/hippie generation) suddenly came around to the Frankfurt school way of thinking regarding race, gender, sex, religion etc. This is because these people were subjected to a propaganda campaign every bit as insidious as the likes of Khmer Rouge era Cambodia, Stalin era USSR, or North Korea today. Even looking at at the Wikipedia article for one of the names cited by The Guardian, Herbert Marceuse, we see this.
Celebrated as the “Father of the New Left“, his best known works are Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man(1964). His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the U.S. and internationally.
The article tries to discredit the concept of Cultural Marxism by pointing out (quite truthfully, I’ll admit) that corporate capitalism (something which is very much opposed by classic Marxism) is still doing very well in the West. However, this doesn’t take into consideration the fact that some of the biggest supporters of Cultural Marxism are big corporations for reasons that should be obvious. Two of the biggest components of cultural Marxism are mass immigration and feminism, two things that are of to the benefit of big corporations. Both increase the number of potential workers in the system (mass immigration by allowing more people into the country, feminism by encouraging women to choose careers instead of following the traditional “wife and mother” role).
The laws of supply and demand means that by increasing the number of potential workers, you in turn devalue what they offer (in this case, their labour) which drives down wages. It also increases the number of potential consumers of products and services. The result, higher profits for said corporations. This also means more competition for limited housing supply which pushes up the cost of getting a mortgage, which increases profits for the banking sector. It’s no coincidence that a single income family in the West 50 years ago was better capable of affording to support a family of 5 or 6 and pay a mortgage, than a dual income family of today at supporting a family of 4 and paying a mortgage today.
Anyway, at this point I’m getting a bit tired of writing. The article is there at the top and people can read it for themselves. I’d also suggest reading the comments on the story. Assuming The Guardian doesn’t end up deleting comments they disagree with (I’m not sure what their moderation policy is like) you’ll be able to see an interesting discussion with some people agreeing and some disagreeing with the article. I’d also suggest actually researching the names and institutions mentioned in the article, in order to learn more about them. In the age of the internet, being ignorant is simply a matter of laziness. Don’t be lazy, please discover the truth for yourselves.
The Guardian article cites this video for ridicule. I think it’s a damn good video personally.
I am happy to report that in England, quick thinking teachers have managed to prevent a second holocaust from occurring, due to their proactive approach in dealing with racist school children, as can be read here.
Extracts from article
Summoned to a meeting at her seven-year-old son’s primary school, Hayley White was prepared for a quick chat about his behaviour.
But when she was told that Elliott had been at the centre of an ‘incident’ with another pupil that was so serious she would have to sign an official form admitting he was racist, she refused to believe what she was hearing.
‘When I arrived at the school and asked Elliott what had happened, he became extremely upset,’ said Ms White, who is a 32-year-old NHS worker. ‘He kept saying to me: “I was just asking a question. I didn’t mean it to be nasty”.’
It turned out that while in the playground Elliott had approached a four-year-old boy and asked him whether he was ‘brown because he was from Africa’.
As we all know, this is how the original holocaust started. A curious seven year old Hitler once asked a black schoolmate if his non-white skin pigmentation meant that he was from Africa and this put him on the path to committing genocide 45 years later. Luckily this child’s teacher knew their history and was able to foresee that this child would clearly grow up to be the next Hitler, if he wasn’t stopped now.
‘I was told I would have to sign a form acknowledging my son had made a racist remark, which would be submitted to the local education authority for further investigation,’ she said. ‘I refused to sign it, and I told the teacher that in no way did I agree the comment was racist. My son is inquisitive. He always likes to ask questions, but that doesn’t make him a racist.’
This mother is clearly a Nazi too and needs to be stopped before she also attempts a holocaust.
But the reality is that across the country each year, thousands of children as young or even younger than Elliott are being branded racists, homophobes and bigots over minor school squabbles, or even innocent questions.
There are no innocent questions unless they are pre-approved by our politically correct overlords.
An obsession with equality and diversity also appeared to be at the root of a news story this week about Ofsted inspectors who asked children aged ten at a Christian school if they knew what lesbians ‘did’. They are also said to have questioned pupils about transsexuality and asked if any of their friends felt trapped in ‘the wrong body’.
As we all know, if children aren’t confused already about their identity, we need to make them feel confused, in order to make them better people in some way that we’re obviously too uneducated to understand.
But there is something particularly toxic about allegations of racism, not least because there is a danger that the more children are branded racist, the more divisions will be sown between children of different colours and creeds where none existed before.
Impossible. Surely making every heterosexual white child out to be a racist/homophobic oppressor will bring them all closer together. If you disagree, you’re obviously a racist homophobe yourself.
Worse still, they warn that there can be serious consequences for young children, who can effectively end up being branded as bigots throughout their school career.
As we all know, children are guilty until proven innocent so the burden of proof is on them to prove that they aren’t bigots when they are accused.
In another case, at a Brighton nursery, a child aged three or four was the subject of an incident report and subjected to ‘counselling’.
This was, apparently, in response to an incident when she was ‘looking at pictures of people with different eye colours and said “yuk not black” and discarded all the black faces, then said “I want a boy”.’
Another mother wrote about how her five-year-old child had got into trouble for referring to her best friend as ‘brown’.
‘They said as this is the 2nd time she has made a “racist” remark it will be put on record and reported to the council,’ she wrote. ‘I was so upset! My daughter is NOT racist, she is five years old, she has coloured family members and family friends. Now it is down on record that my child is racist. I spoke to my daughter and she does not understand what she has done wrong . . . she said “mummy but she is brown, she has brown skin”.’
That 5 year old child is obviously racist because she noticed skin colour. You’re only allowed to notice the skin colour of white people, not non-whites.
‘The enforcers of these politically correct positions need to justify those positions: they look for evidence and find what they are looking for. It is a bit like witch-finding — they are seeking out examples to justify their position.’ With the end result, of course, that pupils find themselves being treated like criminals.
And after reading all that, how could anyone possibly think that the system is insane and overreacting to everything? Clearly, it’s saving lives, and we need to encourage these teachers to keep up the good work.
I’ve just heard that apparently this hashtag has been doing the rounds on twitter as of late. Personally, I just have to say that I think it’s a wonderful idea. Although it’s probably not well known in the mainstream (perhaps the Jewish controlled media are too modest to report on it), it is in fact the Jews who have been the biggest voices in favour of multiculturalism in Europe and European based societies.
It is thanks to their hard work and lobbying that we have had our boring first world countries culturally enriched by the invading hordes from third world countries. Regardless of your opinions on the Jews (whether you love them, hate them, or are completely indifferent to them), this is simply a fact that cannot be denied. Lets look at a few examples of the Jews who have worked tirelessly to enrich our societies with the gift of multiculturalism.
Europe will not survive without multiculturalism. Sure, it survived all this time without it, but clearly for reasons unknown and unstated, it cannot continue to survive this way. Thank you Barbara Spectre for knowing what’s best for us stupid goyim.
And here’s a video of Sarkozy telling the French people that it’s their duty to breed with other races to avoid future problems. If people don’t volunteer, the State will force them to do so against their will. Such diversity, such enrichment. Don’t you feel enriched white man?
So as can be seen, Jews have been, and continue to be, some of the biggest advocates of Multiculturalism in the Western world. The information is all there and it cannot be denied. We have Jews to thank for all our diversity and enrichment. However, there’s one thing that seems strange about all this. Somehow these selfless Jews are so busy making sure that us Europeans, Americans, Australians and now, Japanese experience multicultural joy, that they forgot all about Israel.
I don’t think that’s fair. Surely Israel also deserves to have their society enriched. In fact, I think Israel deserves it most of all, seeing as Jews have done so much to bring enrichment elsewhere. The time has come for Israel to open up her borders and experience the same multicultural joy as as all of us.
You know in your hearts it’s right. Israel needs to experience those same multicultural joys that they have inflicted on everyone else.
So 2015 is going to be a historic year in Ireland. We’re going to have a referendum on legalising gay marriage and all signs suggest that it will pass. To most of us, this just seems like a no-brainer. We think that it’s long overdue and we can’t comprehend how there was so much hostility towards homosexuals in the past in our societies. Then, we look at those who still feel hostility towards them and we feel disgust, contempt, and we consider them backwards in their thinking. We’d like to believe that we think this way simply because its the right way to think and that we’d think this way no matter what. Personally, I don’t think that’s the case.
Now let me just get the disclaimer out of the way before I continue on. I myself am not opposed to gay rights. Far from it. My policy has always been one of live and let live. As long as a person’s way of life does not cause harm to or infringe on the rights of others, I see no problem with people living their life as they see fit. I see absolutely no way that homosexuality causes harm to others, so I will definitely be voting yes to gay marriage legislation and would encourage others to do the same.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I’ll continue. We look at countries like Russia and their anti-gay laws and we think “How could they do that?” The reality is, they can do that because they have widespread popular support to do so. In fact, according to this article, 88% of Russians polled support the law (and I wonder how many of the 12% who don’t are heterosexuals). People in the West demonise the Russian government for this law, but the reality is it’s Russian society as a whole that has a problem with homosexuality.
So what is it that makes them different from us? Why is it that we in the West are so supportive of the rights of homosexuals, but those in Russia (and manyother countries where it’s actually completely illegal) aren’t? Is it just that we’re smarter and more enlightened? Is it because we’re naturally more compassionate people? My answer to that is no. We need only look at our own past to see this. Back when we were Catholic Church dominated Ireland, we were just as opposed to homosexuality as the Russians are. In fact, we only decriminalised homosexual acts in 1993, the same year funnily enough that Russia did. However, in the 2 decades since, Russia has remained as homophobic a society as ever, whereas as we not only tolerate it, but welcome it and treat it with the same level of respect as heterosexuality.
“What Jimmy didn’t know was that Ralph was sick. A sickness that was not visible like smallpox, but no less dangerous and contagious. A sickness of the mind. You see, Ralph was a homosexual, a person who demands an intimate relationship with members of their own sex.” I’m dying from laughter.
The reason why is obvious. Our media and our public representatives have been pushing very strongly for gay rights. Homophobic people and institutions are condemned as bigots. We have enacted legislation that forbids us from discriminating based on a person’s sexuality (and rightfully so), and we have seen more and more positive portrayals of gay characters in our entertainment in modern times.
I’m a young enough guy, but I’m old enough to remember the days when people would use the word “Gay” in place of the words “Stupid”, “Bad”, and other negative words and nobody would bat an eye. I can remember a time when gay teens felt unable to come out of the closet for fear of being bullied by their classmates. I can remember when people used to think of the famous gay bar, The George, as some kind of hangout for perverted degenerates, rather than what it actually is, a perfectly normal pub which just happens to be a comfortable place for gay people to meet each other. All of this was only about a decade ago. We’ve come a long way in our attitudes towards the gay community.
I just believe that it’s something that merits thinking about. If the media can change our attitudes to long held thoughts on a topic that quickly and easily, what other things can they (or indeed have they?) influence us on? As I’ve said, I do believe that beyond the obvious biased push in favour of gay rights, that even looking at it from an unbiased perspective, it is the right way to go. However, I can’t help but wonder. If our media was more like the media in Russia, would we still have the same attitudes? I’m sure most of us would like to say that yes we would, but honestly, I’m not so sure.
I’m just after reading an article which tries to downplay yesterday’s terrorist attack as if it was something that we brought up ourselves. You can read it here, though I’ll be quoting and responding to relevant pieces of it here.
The attack on Charlie Hebdo will further entrench the terms of a confused European debate about Muslim immigrants—one in which both the “accusers” and the “defenders” of Islam are painting in dangerously broad brushstrokes. While the European far right points to Islamic terrorism to exclude and malign all Muslims, the European left responds by refusing to recognize how fundamental a challenge Islamic terrorism represents (or that it is inspired by Islam at all).
I actually have to give credit here. Unlike most of these articles which usually only side with the defenders and automatically treat anyone who dares to criticise Islam as an intolerant Nazi, it seems that the author here at least recognises that there are extreme loons on both sides of the argument.
Both sides fail to realize that two seemingly opposite sentiments can stand side by side: the conviction that Muslims should become full and equal members of European democracies
Absolutely not. The only people who should be full and equal members of our countries are our own citizens. I’m perfectly willing to give outsiders a chance to come in and earn that right, but only after years of living within our societies and proving themselves to be loyal and respectful of our laws, cultures and traditions. Without earning that privilege, how can we ever expect them to appreciate it? This ridiculous nonsense of “Oh, they’re lashing out because they aren’t equal, so we should just hand them citizenship to make them feel better” is fucking insane. Plenty of other countries have stricter immigration procedures than we do (Japan for example) and the immigrants don’t go in and cause trouble because they know it won’t help. The outsiders who cause trouble here do so because they despise our cultures and they know that we’re too weak willed to do anything of consequence about it. These people need the stick approach, not the carrot, if we want to keep them in line.
and the unabashed determination to defend those democracies against Islamic fundamentalism.
I agree. We can start by rounding up in the middle of the night, anyone within our borders who so much as expresses sympathy for Islamic fundamentalism, beating the fuck out of them, flying over the nearest fundamentalist Islamic country and dropping them out of a plane (maybe with a parachute if we’re feeling generous).
Even before Wednesday’s attacks, tensions between “natives” and “Muslim immigrants”—a telling juxtaposition, since a majority of Europe’s Muslims were in fact born on the continent—were at a boiling point.
Of course tensions are high. Because of all the previous Islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred in our countries. Because of their constant threats of enforcing Sharia Law if they ever got the numbers to do so. Because of all the rapes of native European women and children by Muslims. It’s not as if tensions are high over nothing. There are very real reasons for it. As for those born in Europe, that’s an irrelevant argument because ultimately, their cultural values are still those of their home countries, rather than their European homes, values which are incompatible with our own.
In France, fears about Islam have been at the center of political debate for the past year, helping far-right political parties attract unprecedented support. If French presidential elections were held today, Marine Le Pen, leader of the xenophobic National Front, would likely beat her rivals to the top spot in the first round of voting.
How terrible. We certainly can’t allow people to vote for people who represent their views. Why would we have democratic values in a democracy? What a crazy concept. Did it ever occur to you to ask why people are likely to vote that way? I doubt it’s simply a case of “we hate those brown people for absolutely no reason”.
Leading French intellectuals have begun to join the anti-Islamic bandwagon. For the past several weeks, French papers have been consumed with a protracted debate about Submission, a new novel by Michel Houellebecq—one of France’s most celebrated writers—which landed in French bookstores on Wednesday. Set in 2022, its protagonist is François, a literature professor who converts to Islam to practice polygamy, rises to the French presidency, and rules the republic according to the dictates of Sharia.
The scary thing is, I can actually see something like that happening. Maybe not as early as 2022, but much like how a lot of the stuff in 1984 is gradually becoming reality, I can see something like that occurring sometime by the mid 21st century if present trends continue.
That is just the kind of scenario that adherents of Pegida, a self-styled alliance of “Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West,” claim to be resisting in neighboring Germany. For months they have been taking to the streets of Dresden to protest immigration in general and the growing influence of Muslims in particular.
It’s happening all over Europe for a reason. The fact of the matter is, we Europeans are fond of our cultures the way they are and we don’t want outsiders coming in and changing it to suit themselves. Any outsiders need to accept our cultures or leave. Those are their choices. Changing things to suit themselves at our expense is not a choice.
Though they say that they defend universal values, their chants of “We are the People” betray how exclusionary their conception of nationhood really is. Appropriating the most famous slogan of the 1989 protests that helped to bring down the Berlin Wall for their own purposes, they are signaling that they will never consider Muslims as true Germans.
To be blunt, they won’t be, no more than a white guy living in China will never be a true Chinese man. European culture has been evolving for thousands of years. Islam originated around the Middle East and so, has ties to Middle Eastern cultures. The two are simply incompatible. I’ve already explained why multiculturalism is destined to failure here.
That’s sadly typical of the “liberal Islamophobia” that has taken hold in much of Europe. To court mainstream support, the far right has cleverly repackaged its disdain for immigrants and religious minorities as a defense of liberal values like gender equality and freedom of speech. This allows the far right across Europe to claim that its real problem with “those Turks” (or “those Algerians” or “those Bangladeshis”) is not that they look different or worship another God; it is that they are enemies of the universal values that a much wider portion of Europe holds dear.
The old racism argument. The author provides absolutely zero evidence that the only reason people have a fear of Islam is due to the skin colour of the people who practice it, but automatically assumes it must be the reason, even though the reason that (s)he dismisses make more sense.
This tack is doubly disingenuous. It is disingenuous because it invokes violent extremists to tar the vast majority of peaceful Muslims with the same calumnious brush. And it is disingenuous because its supposed love of liberal values is but a fig leaf.
I don’t condone attacks on peaceful Muslims either, especially seeing as I have many Muslim friends who I have a great deal of respect for. That’s why I’d prefer for us all to work together to get rid of the extremists who are a curse on us all.
Also I wouldn’t call freedom of speech a liberal value seeing as “liberal” types are at the forefront of censoring free speech that might offend people.
What ultimately drives movements like Pegida or the National Front is not a defense of universal norms but rather a monocultural and monoethnic conception of who is a true German or a true Frenchman.
And what’s wrong with that? Why is that every other country in the world is allowed to remain monocultural and monoethnic, but what were once predominately white countries (Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand) are expected to put aside their own cultures in favour of those of outsiders? Outsiders who might I add will still have their countries of origin and culture preserved perfectly? It doesn’t seem fair that it’s only us who aren’t allowed to preserve our cultures or our distinct ethnicity.
After all, most of the same people who attack Muslims on the grounds that they are unwilling to accept liberal values are themselves unwilling to accept that most basic of liberal credos—that somebody should be able to become a full member of the nation irrespective of his skin color or his creed.
Nothing to do with skin colour. It’s about their values. Most reasonable people (myself included) don’t care what race a person is as long as that person is as respectful and loyal to our countries as anyone else.
Those who advocate for a more diverse Europe tend to have a lot of fun pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of liberal Islamophobia. But, all too often, these tolerant souls are guilty of an equally dangerous hypocrisy of their own. They rightly lament that there’s a lot of prejudice against Muslims, but they wrongly infer that we should refrain from criticizing any manifestation of Islam—and consequently deny that there is anything Islamic about the kind of terrorism that has just left a Paris magazine’s offices riddled with bullets.
Another good point that I have to give credit to.
The terrorism of ISIS and al-Qaida no more defines Islam than the Crusades or the Inquisition define Christianity. But just as no historian can make sense of the nature of the Crusades without grappling seriously with the religious beliefs of their protagonists, so too it is impossible to make sense of Islamic terrorism without taking seriously the religious motivations of those who perpetrate it.
Comparing stuff that happened centuries ago in Christianity to stuff happening today in Islam. The stupidity speaks for itself.
In denying that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with Islam—or that a small fringe of fundamentalist Muslims poses a real threat to values we deeply cherish—self-styled defenders of Muslim immigrants are making the same mistake as their adversaries. For political reasons, they blind themselves to the vast differences among various forms of Islam.
True. This ridiculous need to appear tolerant is suicidal It’s perfectly acceptable to criticise things that deserve criticising.
The slogan #JeSuisCharlie, “I am Charlie,” is making the rounds on Twitter and Facebook at the moment. It’s the right sentiment, for the attack on Charlie Hebdosurely was an attack on everyone who values a free society. But in rallying to the defense of our values, we must, as ever, remember what those values actually are: a set of rules and institutions that allows everyone who subscribes to them to live together peacefully—whether they be a devout Muslim or a blasphemous cartoonist.
Living together peacefully requires cooperation on both sides. The way I see it, simply by allowing them to come to our countries at all, giving them a chance to work and live with us, and by bringing in laws to protect them from discrimination, native Europeans have already done their part. The ball is in their court now. They need to show us that they want to live peacefully with us. Otherwise, they need to leave.
A brilliant article that everyone should read. It’s hard to believe this was written 15 years ago. Amazing how accurate it has been at predicting the present. I really can’t do it justice by adding my own thoughts to it so I’ll just post it verbatim (perhaps with a few images thrown in for added impact.)
The Origins of Political Correctness: Bill Lind (February 5, 2000)
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
Where does all this stuff that you’ve heard about this morning – the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it – where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it “Political Correctness.” The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted “victims” groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, “Wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, 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 – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn’t as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies don’t get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both 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. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.” So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we’re familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didn’t happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldn’t be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didn’t spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didn’t support them.
So the Marxists’ had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. 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?” He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing.”
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, “What we need is a think-tank.” Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out it’s a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, “I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism.” Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. They’re still very much Marxist in their thinking, but they’re effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we’re not going to bless this.”
Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”
The stuff we’ve been hearing about this morning – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and that’s the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphous perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.” Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. “Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature.” That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. “The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, ” was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.” “Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (here’s were they’re obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his “protest…against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, “Hell no we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They’re students, they’re baby-boomers, and they’ve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn’t require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “Do your own thing,” “If it feels good do it,” and “You never have to go to work.” By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, “Make love, not war.” Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In “hate crimes” we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. It’s exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it’s coming here. And we don’t recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that it’s not funny, it’s here, it’s growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
Once again, I’ve heard a story that I’ve heard time and time again. A bunch of primitive savages who have invaded Europe and other European based countries have taken offence to something in their host nation (France in this case) and have decided to respond by murdering people. Apparently they took offence to some satirical magazine that regularly mocked Islam (think the Danish Muhammed cartoons all over again), and were so outraged, that they responded with terrorism. Personally, I’m getting sick of it.
I truly believe that despite the propaganda about how white people are evil racist oppressors, that we are in fact the most tolerant people in the world. Can someone name a non-white society that not only allows in the number of outsiders that we do, but actually allows them to openly threaten to destroy their culture, the way extremist muslims threaten ours? I sure can’t. The reason why this is so is obvious. Every other culture still takes pride in who they are, whereas we have been bombarded with constant propaganda about how terrible we are and how we need to step aside for others.
We’re not allowed to take pride in our own cultures and heritage, and we’re not allowed to insult obviously inferior cultures that are incompatible with our own. Instead, we are expected to keep our mouths shut and allow these invaders to demand we change our societies to be more comfortable to them. What this means is, our culture, our heritage, our way of life is gradually eroded and replaced by one completely different from our. Meanwhile, the societies the invaders come from will still exist perfectly intact, which they can always choose to return to if they prefer, while they destroy ours. When our society is gone, where do we go to?
In nature, it’s always the fittest that survive. While the enemies of our societies are taught to “kill the non-believers” we’re taught to turn the other cheek, to be tolerant of all other beliefs, and to put the interests of others ahead of our own. For centuries, our ancestors fought to create Western Civilisation and to repel our would be invaders from destroying it. Now, we just let them walk in, give them free stuff (that none of us would be entitled to) and allow them to dictate what we can and can’t say and do in our own countries. And if we don’t give in to their demands, we see that they respond with violence. After everything our ancestors did for us, I think it would be a disgrace if we didn’t try to maintain our societies for our own descendants. The time has come for us to stop being so tolerant, and for us to get rid of anyone who so much as speaks about replacing our culture with their own. We need to do so now, before it’s too late.