In yesterday's post I reasserted my position that Islamic culture is not compatible with a Western society. As long as a Muslim population is statistically insignificant or is otherwise too small to result in any real manifestation of political power or influence, things tend to be OK. Once that changes, Muslims begin to demand more and more concessions, violence increases, and fundamentalistic thought becomes more predominant.
Until today I was not aware of a particular political movement among Turks of many different nations. The Grey Wolves appears to be the self-applied name used by the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Its goal is to create a Turkish nation that stretches from the former Ottoman-ruled areas of the Balkans (Which was the entire Balkans and then some) to the regions of Western China, which is peopled by ethnic Turks was near to the point of origin of the original Turkish tribes.
As I have noted earlier, Turks never existed anywhere near Asia Minor/Anatolia/Modern Turkey until later Medieval times. So when you hear that St. Nicholas lived in Myra, which is in Turkey, you can correct anyone who claims that Santa Claus was a Turk.
This party has an outlook that is Fascist in that it is strongly associated with radical nationalistic/ethnic thought. Due to the historical origins of Fascism, I along with many others classify it as a doctrine of the Left. It was designed with some of the same intentions of early Leftists; strong central control of industry, political organization of the working classes, etc. The main difference with the traditional Left is that Fascism is not international in its outlook. The former seeks to eliminate all national borders and sovereignty. Some early proponents of fascism actually viewed it as a stepping stone to true Marxism.
Another point on which I have written is the Year Zero concept. This is the idea that, to create the society of the future, which to a leftist is full-bore international Communism, all cultural influences of the past must be eradicated. The most well known examples of this were seen in the purges of the Khmer Rouge and Mao's Cultural Revolution. In the West, we are experiencing the exact same thing. The only difference is that here no one is as of yet being sent to labor camps or being executed.
The means by which the Left seeks to realize Year Zero in the West is to denigrate or otherwise strategically ignore all the historical works of Western Civilization and to consign them to the dustbins of history. It is a fairly effective measure; ensure that people are either completely ignorant of their past or detest it so much that it is consequently ignored by the sheep-like masses, and the plan if at least halfway accomplished. Once that obstacle is out of the way, Western Culture is poised to be swept aside by the tide of Marxism.
Hillaire Belloc noted in How the Reformation Happened that the Great Schism of the West went a long way towards excising from Western Europe the idea that a unified Church had any importance. In the Church were two individuals who claimed to be the legitimate Pope. At one point a Church council muddied the waters further and named another claimant, thus resulting in three claimants. I will go no father on this other than to note that at no point was their any more than one legitimate Pope at any time, but the conflict nevertheless resulted in various groups/nations supporting one claimant vs. the other(s) and that this confusion created a sort of disillusion and possibly apathy in Western Europe in regards to the concept of a unified Church. Belloc noted that an entire generation had grown up and aged while witnessing this period of confusion and competing loyalties. The first act of the play that ended in the Balkanization of the Western Church was completed.
The following essay posted in Gates of Vienna describes the paradox that exists today in Leftist-influenced societies in how they respond to nationalistic movements. Those that support nationalism of European nations or the protection of a people's (In this case those of Western Europe) sense of identity are attacked without mercy by the Left. Those that advocate the same thing for other peoples, such as the Grey Turks, are left to themselves and are not bothered in any way. In applying the maxim of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", the Left is fine with a Fascist group that would help in undermining Western Societies and rid the West once and for all of Christianity, Judaism, and the sense of historical/ethnic identity of its peoples.
The author of the essay holds that Fascism is a far-right ideology, but I would agree with him that, if it were so, it is certainly (as he notes) a "mirror image" of Leftist ideology.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/08/no-fight-against-right.html#more
-From the Gates of Vienna translator:
"The Grey Wolves (Graue Wölfe) is the designation for members of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) founded in 1961. They also call themselves the “Idealists” (Turkish, Ülkücüler). The goal of the Grey Wolves is to unite all Turks by the establishment of a Turkish nation stretching from the Balkans through Central Asia into Xinjiang in China. German Intelligence (der Verfassungsschutz) of North Rhine-Westphalia, which monitors the Grey Wolves, alleges that the organisation is contributing” to the emergence of a parallel society in Europe” and sees it as “a hindrance to the integration of the Turkish population” (Source: Metapedia). Enemies of the Grey Wolves are made up largely of the Kurds, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, and the Americans. The Turkish ethno-nationalist movement can “howl their fascistic slogans”, as Sattler puts it, because “those responsible can file suit with reference to the anti-discrimination law” [Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ)]
The Bunte Republik (The Multicoloured Republic of Germany) is a political expression in Germany. M. Sattler uses it repeatedly in place of the official name for Germany,Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany), hence ‘The Multicultural Republic of Germany’. The word play is on Bund (Federal) and Bunt (multicoloured, coloured, mottled, spotted). .............."
The aforementioned essay in Gates of Vienna:
The aforementioned essay in Gates of Vienna:
Bolding is added.
No Fight against the Right
By M. Sattler
The anti-fascism of the Bunten Republik [Multicoloured Republic] makes distinctions according to criteria of nationality: German right-wing extremism is opposed, Turkish right-wing extremism is tolerated. By contrast, the anti-fascism of East Germany was a universal anti-fascism: right-wing extremism was a generalised enemy, independent of a particular nation. The reasons for these entirely divergent stances are to be sought in the ideological backgrounds of these two left-doctrinaire states.
1. The Anti-fascism of East Germany
The anti-fascism of East Germany arose from its Marxist-Leninist tradition and its self-conception as part of the communist world revolution: The goal of the Marxist-Leninist worker’s struggle is in fact the worldwide overcoming of national identities through the construction of a social identity defined by class struggle. The Fascism founded by Mussolini formed the direct counter-thesis to that: in response to Lenin’s October Revolution, Mussolini called for overcoming of the class-antagonisms, not by struggle, but by national solidarity within the great totality. Both ideologies, Marxism-Leninism and Fascism, therefore deal with the same themes of “class” and “nation”. They form a typical pair of opposites providing divergent answers to the same question. Marxist-Leninist communism means necessarily rejection of its laterally reversed mirror image; that is, uncompromising anti-fascism, and vice versa [“laterally reversed mirror image”, des seitenverkehrten Spiegelbilds, can also mean a mirror image reversed left to right].
Since Marxism-Leninism strives to overcome the idea of nation and for the internationalism of the working class, it can combat Fascism consistently only in an anti-nationalistic way; that is, it does not differentiate Fascism by the criterion of nationality, into a “good” and a “bad” Fascism. It attacks the enemy, right-wing nationalistic fascistic thinking, on a worldwide basis: in Italy under Mussolini; in Poland after the military putsch of 1926; in Germany of the late 1920s; in the 1930s in Thailand and Japan and in Spain under Franco; in the 1950s and ‘60s in Turkey and in the 1970s in Chile. The anti-fascism of the Marxist-Leninist East Germany also stood in this tradition of a universal, worldwide oriented anti-fascism until 1989.
2. The Anti-Fascism of the Bunten Republik
In contrast to East Germany the foundation of our present-day “Bunten Republik” is to be sure unmistakably left-wing doctrinaire, but not Marxist-Leninist. The left-doctrinaire ideology of theBunten Republik rests on the strongly Maoist-created Cultural Revolution of the ’68ers — a left-wing revolution which never took place in the Marxist-Leninist sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. As distinct from Marxism-Leninism, however, Maoism is not only a movement oriented toward class struggle, but is first and foremost a culture-war movement inimical to civilisation. The new communist man can only emerge insofar as he annihilates the “old” culture altogether. The core questions of Marxism-Leninism and its fascistic antithesis therefore play only a marginal role for Maoism. The Maoist does not struggle either against other classes or other nations; his fight is introverted and auto-aggressive; his image of the enemy is his own culture as part of the human civilisation.
These auto-aggressive Maoist influences also gained a foothold in West Germany after Mao’s 1966 Cultural Revolution, where they influenced the revolt of the 1968ers quite substantially. They also explain the different perspectives on Fascism between East Germany and the Bunten Republik. In the Marxist-Leninist East Germany a fascist was a fascist, no matter which country he came from. In the more vigorously Maoist cultural-revolutionaryBunten Republik on the other hand, Fascism counted as an enemy only in the auto-aggressive context. When 6,000 Turkish right-wing extremists [Grey Wolves] gather in the Grugahalle [an indoor sports arena on 19 Nov. 2011] in Essen and howl their fascistic slogans, this is no issue for the Bunten Republik. In Germany, to oppose Turkish Fascists would be counterproductive for the cultural revolution. Very definitely it is an issue however, when five German right-wing extremists gather in front of a drink-kiosk.
Unlike East Germany, therefore, the Bunte Republik by no means fights “against the Right” universally, it fights selectively. Out if its budget of millions for the “war against the Right”, it will never allocate even a single penny for the fight against the Turkish Grey Wolves. This apparent “double standard” is not, however, a consequence of a naïve misjudgement of the real situational danger stemming from right-wing extremism in Germany. It is a deliberate and entirely consistent course of political action which is immediately derived from the auto-aggressive character of the multicoloured ideology [bunten Ideologie], itself influenced by Maoism from the outset, and directed against its own culture and civilisation. To characterise the Bunte Republik as “anti-fascistic” or indeed to see it in the tradition of the universalised anti-fascism of East Germany is not only to misjudge the East German context taken by itself. Such an evaluation also misconstrues the historically evolved variations internal to the left-doctrinaire world of ideas, and hence the entire ideological foundation of our present-day Bunten Republik.
No Fight against the Right
By M. Sattler
The anti-fascism of the Bunten Republik [Multicoloured Republic] makes distinctions according to criteria of nationality: German right-wing extremism is opposed, Turkish right-wing extremism is tolerated. By contrast, the anti-fascism of East Germany was a universal anti-fascism: right-wing extremism was a generalised enemy, independent of a particular nation. The reasons for these entirely divergent stances are to be sought in the ideological backgrounds of these two left-doctrinaire states.
1. The Anti-fascism of East Germany
The anti-fascism of East Germany arose from its Marxist-Leninist tradition and its self-conception as part of the communist world revolution: The goal of the Marxist-Leninist worker’s struggle is in fact the worldwide overcoming of national identities through the construction of a social identity defined by class struggle. The Fascism founded by Mussolini formed the direct counter-thesis to that: in response to Lenin’s October Revolution, Mussolini called for overcoming of the class-antagonisms, not by struggle, but by national solidarity within the great totality. Both ideologies, Marxism-Leninism and Fascism, therefore deal with the same themes of “class” and “nation”. They form a typical pair of opposites providing divergent answers to the same question. Marxist-Leninist communism means necessarily rejection of its laterally reversed mirror image; that is, uncompromising anti-fascism, and vice versa [“laterally reversed mirror image”, des seitenverkehrten Spiegelbilds, can also mean a mirror image reversed left to right].
Since Marxism-Leninism strives to overcome the idea of nation and for the internationalism of the working class, it can combat Fascism consistently only in an anti-nationalistic way; that is, it does not differentiate Fascism by the criterion of nationality, into a “good” and a “bad” Fascism. It attacks the enemy, right-wing nationalistic fascistic thinking, on a worldwide basis: in Italy under Mussolini; in Poland after the military putsch of 1926; in Germany of the late 1920s; in the 1930s in Thailand and Japan and in Spain under Franco; in the 1950s and ‘60s in Turkey and in the 1970s in Chile. The anti-fascism of the Marxist-Leninist East Germany also stood in this tradition of a universal, worldwide oriented anti-fascism until 1989.
2. The Anti-Fascism of the Bunten Republik
In contrast to East Germany the foundation of our present-day “Bunten Republik” is to be sure unmistakably left-wing doctrinaire, but not Marxist-Leninist. The left-doctrinaire ideology of theBunten Republik rests on the strongly Maoist-created Cultural Revolution of the ’68ers — a left-wing revolution which never took place in the Marxist-Leninist sphere of influence of the Soviet Union. As distinct from Marxism-Leninism, however, Maoism is not only a movement oriented toward class struggle, but is first and foremost a culture-war movement inimical to civilisation. The new communist man can only emerge insofar as he annihilates the “old” culture altogether. The core questions of Marxism-Leninism and its fascistic antithesis therefore play only a marginal role for Maoism. The Maoist does not struggle either against other classes or other nations; his fight is introverted and auto-aggressive; his image of the enemy is his own culture as part of the human civilisation.
These auto-aggressive Maoist influences also gained a foothold in West Germany after Mao’s 1966 Cultural Revolution, where they influenced the revolt of the 1968ers quite substantially. They also explain the different perspectives on Fascism between East Germany and the Bunten Republik. In the Marxist-Leninist East Germany a fascist was a fascist, no matter which country he came from. In the more vigorously Maoist cultural-revolutionaryBunten Republik on the other hand, Fascism counted as an enemy only in the auto-aggressive context. When 6,000 Turkish right-wing extremists [Grey Wolves] gather in the Grugahalle [an indoor sports arena on 19 Nov. 2011] in Essen and howl their fascistic slogans, this is no issue for the Bunten Republik. In Germany, to oppose Turkish Fascists would be counterproductive for the cultural revolution. Very definitely it is an issue however, when five German right-wing extremists gather in front of a drink-kiosk.
Unlike East Germany, therefore, the Bunte Republik by no means fights “against the Right” universally, it fights selectively. Out if its budget of millions for the “war against the Right”, it will never allocate even a single penny for the fight against the Turkish Grey Wolves. This apparent “double standard” is not, however, a consequence of a naïve misjudgement of the real situational danger stemming from right-wing extremism in Germany. It is a deliberate and entirely consistent course of political action which is immediately derived from the auto-aggressive character of the multicoloured ideology [bunten Ideologie], itself influenced by Maoism from the outset, and directed against its own culture and civilisation. To characterise the Bunte Republik as “anti-fascistic” or indeed to see it in the tradition of the universalised anti-fascism of East Germany is not only to misjudge the East German context taken by itself. Such an evaluation also misconstrues the historically evolved variations internal to the left-doctrinaire world of ideas, and hence the entire ideological foundation of our present-day Bunten Republik.
No comments:
Post a Comment