He begins with Federica Mogherini, who is, in a sense, the EU’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. She rejects the very possibility of culture clashes, or of Islamisation, or even the existence of different power blocs in the world, as being incompatible with the new EU identity which is based on plurality and openness.
It's similar to what I wrote in the comments to a reader recently: Western liberals don't necessarily want to be dominated, but they have adopted a set of moral beliefs and a way of creating meaning in life which then commits them to the hope that the world exists in a certain way. In other words, they are not starting with reality, they are starting with ideological commitments, and they then act in the hope and belief that the world exists in a way that fits into these commitments.
For Federica Mogherini this means hoping that there will be no power blocs in the world, no clash of civilisations, and no serious point of conflict between Islam and Western liberalism. This is what she finds herself committed to ideologically.
This is how she herself puts it:
“The very idea of a clash of civilisations is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union — let alone with reality. Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilisation through openness and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us. Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe — that is my core message — they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are. This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and beyond Europe. For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project.”
It's worth noting, too, the "identity" that Europeans are now supposed to adopt, which is a suicidal non-identity. Europeans are now supposed to believe that their identity is based around having no particular identity, only an openness to the other.
An equally horrible EU boss is Frans Timmermans. He also manages to define away the existence of Europe as a place with particular cultures and peoples. He sees it instead as a kind of stage for the expression of liberal politics: the EU is being imagined as liberal theatre. According to Timmermans:
The rise of islamophobia is the one of the biggest challenges in Europe. It is a challenge to our vital values, to the core of who we are. Never has our societies’ capacity for openness, for tolerance, for inclusion been more tested than it is today. Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat. Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity’s destiny.
Timmermans is not saying that tolerance, inclusion and openness can be virtues in certain circumstances. He is making the radical claim that they are vital values which constitute the core of what a European is. He believes that diversity - by which he means the loss of communal cultures - is humanity's destiny.
Finally, there is Vera Jourova who wants to curb freedom of expression on the internet to limit criticism of what bosses like herself are doing (Fjordman has the details of this).
So what is to be done? At a higher level, the liberal ideology itself needs to come under sustained attack. We should be writing books and pamphlets which systematically criticise it (as James Kalb has done).
There is also the option of reasserting our own particular identities in defiance of the elite's efforts to promote a universal liberal identity.
Punishing the elites politically is also a worthy aim, although it means supporting genuinely non-liberal groups, rather than giving unthinking support to the mainstream right.
At some point Liberalism as self-creation became Liberalism as self-annihilation. Autonomy theory went radical. Think of a clump of clay created into a cup and then destroyed, recreated into a bowl and then destroyed, recreated into a tile and then destroyed, recreated into a brick and then destroyed... Over time, this entropic cycle leaves one FINALLY with nothing to which to recreate. Self-annihilation is Final Liberation. This desire for radical autonomy is desire for self-annihilation. There are the true believers and then there are the "preachers" offing the true believers with their "sermons."
In other words, they are not starting with reality, they are starting with ideological commitments,ReplyDelete
It's the classic leftist method. You find a theory that you like. If the facts contradict the theory you ignore the facts. The theory must be right so the facts must be wrong. The problem is easily solved - you just make up some facts to support your theory.
Punishing the elites politically is also a worthy aim, although it means supporting genuinely non-liberal groups, rather than giving unthinking support to the mainstream right.ReplyDelete
Absolutely! The mainstream right is just as committed to the destruction of our civilisation as is the Left. The only difference is that the mainstream right is more dishonest and more cynical. Political parties of the mainstream right are more dangerous enemies to our civilisation than parties of the Left because they give people the false impression that they represent an alternative.
"Democracy" as it currently exists is a sham. It's all smoke and mirrors. In reality the entire political class shares the same agenda.
"In reality the entire political class shares the same agenda."Delete
Yes, to the degree that changing Prime Ministers is more like changing managers or CEOs - it doesn't have the political repercussions you think it might have.