Saturday, March 01, 2008


A totally diverse nation is not a nation in any meaningful way, for the concept of a nation is a shared language and culture. For all practical purposes, a common culture means a common religion or national character.

It is interesting but maudlin to note that the desire to socially engineer a "diverse nation" is only prevalent among the political elite of the West. Nowhere else is such a pedantic idiocy given any currency.

Personal identity, and by natural extension, one's "herd identity" is one of the most arresting, and primary psychological compulsions of human consciousness. It functions as both keel and rudder for the personality when the seas are calm as well as rough. When this identity is fractured by opposing forces, the personality as a whole suffers, and the struggle of that personality oscillating within the now competitive but often unrewarding environments of the self and citizen tends to distort those common grounds promised to and now expected by the personality.

In its aim to socially engineer a "diverse nation", the political elite in Europe and even here in America are debilitating the West, modern civilization, and in the near future in a neighborhood near you, creating the conditions for a global war.

No doubt, many will cite "racist" attitudes for the preceding paragraphs. When all else fails, just accuse someone of being racist, the most feared and hence the most preferred albatross to hang around the neck of anyone willing to contradict one of the many dubious spirits of this sorry age. But as noted earlier, it is only the Western dreamy-eyed neo-Marxist rascals who come to this conclusion, and practice multiculturalism with vim and vigor without insisting on the slightest reciprocity by its enemies, as if multiculturalism were a punishing commandment from God, or perhaps, Karl Marx himself.

"What's the difference between an old Marxist and a neo-Marxist?" asks the young eager to please student of his master.

"Not much. Same idealism. Different lies."

But let me be plain here. Global Marxism, or heaven on earth is probably in humanity's future, if man doesn't destroy the earth before we get there. But when? A hundred years from now? A thousand?

That should not concern us. Instead, we must ask ourselves, how do we get from here to there? That is the major question of our times. Planet Earth is simply not ready. We cannot force "our own" idealism upon the world, no matter how righteous it appears to us. Limited force is all-corrupting. All out force is limited to the survivors of such idealism. Even in the 1920s artists and visionaries understood the wide chasm between the dystopian nightmare and any sustainable peace of utopian paramours. Today's ideologues, hell-bent on "serenity now" not just for themselves, but for their distant neighbor too, even if it takes all the force the state can muster, seem to have flung every caution to the wind, all the while muttering, "Peace, now!"

As if thrusting a wish upon a bright star ever really resulted in ushering forth a tooth fairy...

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home