Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
Cultural Marxism: ‘A nation within a state’ is a dumb idea
'Conservatives' disuniting nations
by StFerdIII
It does make one weary. Conservatives acting like populists and subscribing to cultural Marxism is a rancid repast to consume. In order to buy the sensitive, multi-cultural vote, conservative populists now pander to racial and ethnic pride. This is happening all over the Western world but it is particularly acute in countries that have replaced the idea of a real nation with the internationally oriented, multi-cultural fetish. Conservatives, supposedly the protectors of traditional, non-secular, anti-socialist and pro-Enlightenment ideas, are now demagogic populists, no better than their cultural Marxist foes. These ‘conservatives’ ignore the fact that we need to assimilate people into the majoritarian culture, not divide up society into little groups whose votes are bought with taxpayer funds.
Long gone are the days of a conservative politician invoking the 1000 year cultural heritage of Western civilization as the most powerful and moral force in world history and demanding assimilation to the Western model by any and all citizens of the country in question. Cultural Marxism and cultural relativity, including the criminality of Western history, is now the philosophe fixé du jour. Populists including – compassionate conservatives, cultural Marxists, and socialists – have decided to implement three grandiose ideas that are changing the faces of all nations in the Western world for the worse. These ideas are: cultural relativism; increasing government spending and power; and a disavowal of the West’s 1000 year history and the virtuousness of its program.
A direct outcome of the above program is the splintering of the current nation state structure as we know it along various lines including regional and racial divisions. These concepts spell the end of the modern nation state in any meaningful sense.
A country that embraces multi-culturalism and panders to race and ethnicity to buy populist votes is on the road to ruin. This path of misery will be paved with good intentions but it will lead to either the literal or figurative breakup of the country in question. When Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada states for example, that the Quebecois or the ‘Quebecers’ are one nation within the greater nation of Canada he is advocating in effect, the complete rejection of the concept of a unified Canada. Why is that the case? Is it not just a sociological fact that in Canada and indeed throughout the Western world tribes, races, and ethnicities are socially unique, to be cherished as part of the rich multi-cultural heritage of a modern state?
The answer in short is no. A nation is blood, soil, culture and language. Once you lose these unifying forces, your so-called ‘nation’ is doomed. Infighting makes the nation inoperable and the reality of not having a common blood, soil, culture and language means the disunited empire will be dissolved into respective and rational divisions which demonstrate a unity of blood, soil, culture and language.
This is one outcome of the current program that all elites seem beholden too. A second outcome is even worse. In polyglot multi-cultural nations, where there is no separate ‘soil’ for the disaffected units to divide up, only the power of a large, centralized government can hold the state together. In this scenario we have the replacement of the cultural heritage of the Western world, with statism, cultural Marxism and economic socialism. In either case we have the continuing eradication of our 1000 year cultural legacy.
Back then to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s idea that ‘Quebecers’ form a separate nation within some ‘nation’ or political configuration called Canada. Analyze the use of the word ‘Quebecer’ as uttered by ‘conservative’ Stephen Harper. One can apply the idea of a unique race or ethnicity to any number of groups within many countries; the Hispanics in the US; the Muslims in France; the Basques in Spain; the Karelians in Finland; the Bretons in France; the Rumenians in Hungary; the Swabians in Germany and so on. So what is the issue? At its core the rather bizarre idea that a nation has sub-nations means in effect that the state is nothing more than a multi-cultural, perhaps race based or ethnically heterogeneous and extended empire.
Identifying one group as unique or more important than other groups creates difficulties. Is someone who is 50% Anglo and 50% French but who speaks only English whilst living in Quebec a Quebecer? Is a native Indian of half-French stock, with French as his first language but living in Ontario, part of the ‘Quebecer’ nation? Is a baby born in Montreal, from a recent female immigrant from China, and a native Quebecer, part of the ‘Quebecer’ nation within a nation? If the 5 million ‘Quebecers’ many of whom have mixed blood lines enjoy special status, why not the 3 million ‘Chinese’ or the 2 million ‘Hispanics’ or the 3 million ‘Italians’ who live in Canada. After all 1 million Chinese populate the Greater Toronto area and constitute almost 20% of its population. Is it not a sociological fact that the Chinese are more important economically, culturally, and socially to Toronto than ‘Quebecers’? Why not recognize this Chinese ‘nation’?
Harper’s statement might be a sociological fact, but sociology has no place in politics. Harper’s pandering to ‘Quebecers’ is designed to appease their emotional sense of who they are, and buy their votes. Such is the cynicism of the current conservative movement in the western world. But beyond that, the incantation of race inside the political process leads to distortions. Ideas inform reality. Race based sociological politics always lead to problems. Some distortions are immoral but fixable ones, such as affirmative action; the use of charter or special ‘rights; court directed racial preferences and so on. Some however are major distortions leading in the extreme to outright racism or national-socialism premised on theories of ethnic superiority. These major distortions lead to conflict and the radical reordering of society. In any case sociological racist definitions have no place in an intelligent political culture.
Beyond blood and soil national emotionalism is fashioned in heritage and culture. There is no doubt that individual, tribal, societal, community and national health and vigor is informed in every way possible by culture. Morality, spirituality, economics, demeanor, pride, wealth, compassion, charity, love, family units - all are informed by the culture of the nation. Without a shared culture there is no nation state. This is true of language as well. You cannot build shared systems of beliefs and cultural links, when languages divide a people. Without a common language there is no common national consciousness. Politicians must either defend the commonality of blood, soil, culture and language or at the very least, not use them to buy votes from different races and ethnicities. To do so destroys the nation.
In general ‘conservatives’ pandering to buy votes from ethnic blocs are part of the problem – not the solution. In buying these votes they will increase spending, send money hither and yon to keep the ‘race’ in question happy with subsidies and handouts, and justify it all with the ‘multicultural’ mantra of peaceful coexistence between different cultures. It is a sad spectacle.
There is only one nation within one nation. Period.
