Sadly I fear the following article may be a tad optimistic. I doubt our leaders are anywhere near giving up their totalitarian dreams to achieve which Multiculturalism is so vital. However, it is an excellent read and the author makes some very valuable and valid points, which may be very useful to us in the struggle ahead.
Multiculturalism Hits The Wall
By J.R. Dunn
By J.R. Dunn
As year ten of the long war looms, the "multicultural" paradigm for defense against terrorism has slammed into a brick wall.
Recent developments reveal a policy in terminal disarray. The public revolt against the TSA, the ridiculous and humiliating Ghailani verdict, the still-simmering Financial District victory mosque controversy, and even the unmasking of the false Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour in Afghanistan have highlighted the absurdity of attempting to meld the "multicultural" worldview with any serious effort against jihadi terrorism. And yet, government officials directly responsible for the defense of the country, from Obama, Holder, and Napolitano on down, insist on maintaining the "multicultural" paradigm despite undeniable evidence of its failure.
Multiculturalism has effectively controlled American security policy as regards terrorism from the very beginning. Islam, we were assured by no less a figure than George W. Bush, was "a religion of peace." Critical resources were invested in curtailing any "backlash" against American Muslims by the evil-minded white Christian majority. Organizations of dubious provenance, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), were appointed official representatives of American Muslims.
What did these attempts to bend over backward under the prompting of an abstract academic intellectual construct accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Bush was excoriated both here and overseas by the very people he was working to protect. The great anti-Muslim backlash never happened (as Jonathan Tobin reminds us). The advocacy groups have all been revealed as fronts for Hamas. Few policies, official or unofficial, have such a pristine record of failure. Few have hung on more tenaciously.
Multiculturalism is the most recent, and perhaps the final, expression of the late 20th-century left-wing ascendancy. It is a completely synthetic doctrine, formulated without reference to any perceptible element of the quotidian world. Although derived in format and rhetoric from the civil rights movement, it has no relationship with the ideas or hopes expressed by King, Abernathy, Rustin, or any other legitimate civil rights leader. While the civil rights movement was founded in opposition to the odious practice of legal racial segregation, multiculturalism had no such concrete agenda. It was based almost completely on abstract academic theories derived in equal part from black racial extremism and Marxism, purporting to define the relationship between the dominant "white" race and all other races.
According to multicultural theory, the "white" race (never further defined) forms a privileged oppressor class, forever and completely at odds with members of other races. The relationship between races is presented only in terms of power, in which the oppressed races became in effect a proletariat awaiting liberation through revolutionary activity. Under these terms, every action taken by the white oppressors is illegitimate, while those taken by the "subaltern" races are justified, no matter what their evident nature and intent. As a global theory, multiculturalism possesses universal applicability under all circumstances. Every aspect of racial and ethnic relations must be seen through the multicultural lens.
It would be difficult to find a theory to beat multiculturalism for sheer vacuity. It ignores the fact that numerous groups among the "oppressor" race, such as the Irish and Jews, have been historical victims, while the "oppressed" races have often victimized in their turn when they have occupied the top slot. (Arab treatment of sub-Saharan Africans marks only one instance.) For these reasons among others, multiculturalism gained no greater a foothold with the American public than its political models, socialism and Marxism. Although the left attempted throughout the late '80s and '90s to force multiculturalism on the country through its activist PC component, the effort went nowhere. Americans as a whole rejected the doctrine as yet another bizarre fixation of the intellectual class.
There were two exceptions -- the academy, whence multiculturalism arose, and the government bureaucracy. On campus, multiculturalism remained one of the weird things that academics believe. In the bureaucracy, it became another expression of bureaucratic stupidity and intransigence, which did not prevent it from having an impact, limited but malignant, on the country as a whole.
That was the status quo in September 2001. After 9/11, the response of the country's intellectual leadership was straightforward: to react exactly as set forth by multicultural doctrine. The U.S., as a white European oppressor state, was obviously at fault. The Islamist jihadis, all members of an oppressed subaltern race, were victims, no matter what appearances might otherwise suggest. The belief system was up and running; all it needed was factoids to be plugged in.
All the same, the response of the left was muted in the immediate wake of the attacks. Only a handful of left-wingers spoke up in their accustomed manner, to scuttle back into the shade and damp when public agreement was not forthcoming. The most notorious of these comments was Michael Moore's posting characterizing the jihadis as "minutemen ... and they will win." A near match came from a nameless, forgotten California pol who asked, "America -- what have you done?"
An angry and disdainful public response momentarily shut down such sentiments. But these comments did speak for tens of thousands of silent true believers. The atrocity was explicable in familiar multicultural terms -- it was "whitey" (America) that was actually to blame for the attack, while the jihadis, far from being murderous thugs, were in truth romantic rebels, so many adorable Ches gazing off into the radiant multicultural future. The left kept its counsel and waited.
CLICK HERE to read the whole article at American Thinker
Recent developments reveal a policy in terminal disarray. The public revolt against the TSA, the ridiculous and humiliating Ghailani verdict, the still-simmering Financial District victory mosque controversy, and even the unmasking of the false Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour in Afghanistan have highlighted the absurdity of attempting to meld the "multicultural" worldview with any serious effort against jihadi terrorism. And yet, government officials directly responsible for the defense of the country, from Obama, Holder, and Napolitano on down, insist on maintaining the "multicultural" paradigm despite undeniable evidence of its failure.
Multiculturalism has effectively controlled American security policy as regards terrorism from the very beginning. Islam, we were assured by no less a figure than George W. Bush, was "a religion of peace." Critical resources were invested in curtailing any "backlash" against American Muslims by the evil-minded white Christian majority. Organizations of dubious provenance, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), were appointed official representatives of American Muslims.
What did these attempts to bend over backward under the prompting of an abstract academic intellectual construct accomplish? Absolutely nothing. Bush was excoriated both here and overseas by the very people he was working to protect. The great anti-Muslim backlash never happened (as Jonathan Tobin reminds us). The advocacy groups have all been revealed as fronts for Hamas. Few policies, official or unofficial, have such a pristine record of failure. Few have hung on more tenaciously.
Multiculturalism is the most recent, and perhaps the final, expression of the late 20th-century left-wing ascendancy. It is a completely synthetic doctrine, formulated without reference to any perceptible element of the quotidian world. Although derived in format and rhetoric from the civil rights movement, it has no relationship with the ideas or hopes expressed by King, Abernathy, Rustin, or any other legitimate civil rights leader. While the civil rights movement was founded in opposition to the odious practice of legal racial segregation, multiculturalism had no such concrete agenda. It was based almost completely on abstract academic theories derived in equal part from black racial extremism and Marxism, purporting to define the relationship between the dominant "white" race and all other races.
According to multicultural theory, the "white" race (never further defined) forms a privileged oppressor class, forever and completely at odds with members of other races. The relationship between races is presented only in terms of power, in which the oppressed races became in effect a proletariat awaiting liberation through revolutionary activity. Under these terms, every action taken by the white oppressors is illegitimate, while those taken by the "subaltern" races are justified, no matter what their evident nature and intent. As a global theory, multiculturalism possesses universal applicability under all circumstances. Every aspect of racial and ethnic relations must be seen through the multicultural lens.
It would be difficult to find a theory to beat multiculturalism for sheer vacuity. It ignores the fact that numerous groups among the "oppressor" race, such as the Irish and Jews, have been historical victims, while the "oppressed" races have often victimized in their turn when they have occupied the top slot. (Arab treatment of sub-Saharan Africans marks only one instance.) For these reasons among others, multiculturalism gained no greater a foothold with the American public than its political models, socialism and Marxism. Although the left attempted throughout the late '80s and '90s to force multiculturalism on the country through its activist PC component, the effort went nowhere. Americans as a whole rejected the doctrine as yet another bizarre fixation of the intellectual class.
There were two exceptions -- the academy, whence multiculturalism arose, and the government bureaucracy. On campus, multiculturalism remained one of the weird things that academics believe. In the bureaucracy, it became another expression of bureaucratic stupidity and intransigence, which did not prevent it from having an impact, limited but malignant, on the country as a whole.
That was the status quo in September 2001. After 9/11, the response of the country's intellectual leadership was straightforward: to react exactly as set forth by multicultural doctrine. The U.S., as a white European oppressor state, was obviously at fault. The Islamist jihadis, all members of an oppressed subaltern race, were victims, no matter what appearances might otherwise suggest. The belief system was up and running; all it needed was factoids to be plugged in.
All the same, the response of the left was muted in the immediate wake of the attacks. Only a handful of left-wingers spoke up in their accustomed manner, to scuttle back into the shade and damp when public agreement was not forthcoming. The most notorious of these comments was Michael Moore's posting characterizing the jihadis as "minutemen ... and they will win." A near match came from a nameless, forgotten California pol who asked, "America -- what have you done?"
An angry and disdainful public response momentarily shut down such sentiments. But these comments did speak for tens of thousands of silent true believers. The atrocity was explicable in familiar multicultural terms -- it was "whitey" (America) that was actually to blame for the attack, while the jihadis, far from being murderous thugs, were in truth romantic rebels, so many adorable Ches gazing off into the radiant multicultural future. The left kept its counsel and waited.
CLICK HERE to read the whole article at American Thinker
8 comments:
Unfortunately one Britain's biggest problems is scum like this...
http://www.billybragg.co.uk/contact.php
1/2 the problem in fact
Multi-culturism, the libera left's wet dream fantasy, has left this country more segregated and given us more tension than before.
It has also allowed poitical Islam to firmly plant its room into UK politics and start the next stage of their plot.
http://waeshael.wordpress.com/
Foruntatey America is a few years behind but with Obama as president and radical Islam sympithisers such as the CAIR it wont be long before America's patience is tested.
@ Anonymous
Thanks for the link to Billy Bragg's site, I have duly bookmarked it. I remember him doing a good version of The Internationale at the International Brigade Memorial a few years back (although my Nan got a little huffy, as he sung some different lyrics to the ones she remembers).
Mr Mathurin
You're welcome! He increasingly needs more and more ethnics as the deluded indigenous gradually wake up and start abandoning his campaign as they are doing.
You might want to consider joining him. After all this hideous retard left its "multi-culti" roots in Barking for the practically "whites only" hills of Dorset?
To "get away" from the seething malaise perhaps?
I'm sure they could with an 'input' down there to 'balance the numbers', 'even out' the ratios.
@ Anonymous
What campaign is Bragg part of? A look at his site shows 4 campaigns he is involved with, including one for electoral reform. Is it all 4 to which you are referring, or one in particular?
As for moving to Dorset, plenty of people (my own parents included) think of moving out of the city to a quieter life in a more rural setting if they are able to retire comfortably. I certainly wouldn't begrudge Mr Bragg his right to do so if he is able.
I'm not even sure what 'inputs' you are referring to at the end. Sorry, that must have gone over my head.
The populist US view that mulitikulti is a socialist/communist/left conspiracy is just nuts. Multiculturalism is a neo-liberal capitalist policy to disenfranchise indigenous people, destroy national sovereignty, and impose corporate control over nations.
The left have really been wrong footed on this - to oppose multiculturalism is to abandon their "international" aspirations while to support it is to get into bed with medieval ideologies.
One question: who benefits from multiculturalism? It sure isn't the indigenous working class.
Go to Youtube and watch the videos on "The Frankfurt school" of Marxism. Also watch the videos by Yuri Bezmenov, an ex KGB spy. These videos should be compulsory watching for any white person.
Class Marxism was supposed to have revolutionized the world. When the revolution did not happen in the West, the Frankfurt school of Marxism changed tactics. They created Neo or Cultural Marxism. Where class Marxism stated that all the classes are equal, Cultural Marxism states that all cultures are equal.
Cultural Marxism is about political correctness and its PC name is LIBERALISM. A liberal is a Neo Marxist. Lenin always referred to liberals as useful idiots, because these people hardly ever grasp the finer details of what it is exactly that they support.
By changing from class Marxism, that is an hidden instrument of war and used to subvert a homogeneous society from within, to cultural Marxism, they were able to provide the required revolutionaries for the Marxist revolution from OTHER cultures, as the white middle class proved to difficult to mobilize.
The whites in the West did not mobilize and without revolutionaries you cannot have a revolution.
Cultural Marxism provided the required revolutionaries from other cultures.
In this case the other cultures are the useful idiots, because they are mere pawns in the game to destroy the west.
Yuri Bezmenov states that there are four stages to a revolution.
1) De-moralization (has happened)
2) De-stabilization (economic crises)
3) Crises (busy unfolding)
4) Normalization (the NWO yoke)
After the crises people will accept any yoke just to have a sense of normality return to their lives.
..............
The Frankfurt school identified spheres of influence that it had to infiltrate to subvert the enemy effectively.
These are....
1) Education (Once you have indoctrinated the kids of your enemy, they become your ally)
2) Politics (In the US you have the fake left right scenario. Two arms but they belong to the same body.)
3) Economics (the moneylenders)
4) Religion (To subvert a nation, you have to destroy its morality and the best way to do this is to control its religion.)
The Marxists belief that the best way to control your opposition is to lead them. The institutions of the West have been infiltrated many decades ago.
‘To win without fighting is best’- ‘The Art of War’
A4
As Herbert Marcuse (of the Frankfurt School) pointed out - any idea or tendency can be turned into a commodity and bought, sold, and traded. That includes communism, nationalism, fascism, - any idea, however critical or revolutionary, can be used to make a buck. He called that process "repressive desublimation".
The importation of millions of people from alien cultures is driven by international capital's desire to end people's idea of sovereignty - of being the owners of their land. If they can succeed in this then your oil, your gas, your water, the very fabric of your society whether natural resources, infrastructure, or services, are no longer yours but commodities that can be bought, sold, and traded.
The left has bought into this with the apparent failure of the welfare state in the UK and the "socialist state" in the USSR. Capitalism was seen to have won the argument so communist and socialist parties embraced capitalism and enriched themselves in the process.
Multiculturalism and mass immigration have nothing to do with a socialist conspiracy and everything to do with a international capital conspiracy to own everything. So far they seem to be well on the way to achieving their goal.
Post a Comment