Tag-arkiv: relativisme

Ugens citat: Den vulgære, ensrettende, korrupte, ubehagelige kapitalisme

Her kommer et dagsaktuelt citat, og vi overlader det til bloggens kloge og belæste læsere at vurdere, hvem ophavsmennesket mon kunne være.  Her er noget, hvor vedkommende taler om De Autonome:

“Jeg genkender det, de siger. Jeg genkender aggressiviteten og vreden. Afmagten. Jeg genkender afmagten over for en af den moderne kapitalismes skyggesider – nemlig ensretningen, den psykologisk skabte markedsplads, en moralsk korrupt økonomisk mekanisme, så ulækker som den glubske umådeholdne grådighed vi nyligt har set udfoldet. En mekanisme som mere og mere appellerer til de ubehagelige, mørke og svage dele af menneskets underbevidsthed. De vulgære, ens facader, discount overalt – laveste fællesnævner. Mediernes modbydelige magtkamp for at udstille og fremvise de mørkeste og mindst flatterende sider af menneskeheden. Internettet med dets ubegrænsede frihed, hvor alt kan findes. Også det “alt”, langt de fleste af os ikke har lyst til at finde – det alt, vi slet ikke har lyst til, vores børn skal finde …”

Hvem mon forfatteren er?

Ugens citat: Steyn om relativistisk multikulturalisme

Den velskrivende Mark Steyn har onsdag et længere indlæg i Wall Street Journal.  Det er som helhed en anelse mere deprimerende, end jeg foretrækker, men så længe det er så velformuleret og tankevækkende som dette, går det nok:

“The progressive agenda–lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism–is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn’t involve knowing anything about other cultures–the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It’s fundamentally a fraud, and I would argue was subliminally accepted on that basis. Most adherents to the idea that all cultures are equal don’t want to live in anything but an advanced Western society. Multiculturalism means your kid has to learn some wretched native dirge for the school holiday concert instead of getting to sing “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” or that your holistic masseuse uses techniques developed from Native American spirituality, but not that you or anyone you care about should have to live in an African or Native American society. It’s a quintessential piece of progressive humbug.

Then September 11 happened. And bizarrely the reaction of just about every prominent Western leader was to visit a mosque: President Bush did, the prince of Wales did, the prime minister of the United Kingdom did, the prime minister of Canada did . . . The premier of Ontario didn’t, and so 20 Muslim community leaders had a big summit to denounce him for failing to visit a mosque. I don’t know why he didn’t. Maybe there was a big backlog, it was mosque drive time, prime ministers in gridlock up and down the freeway trying to get to the Sword of the Infidel-Slayer Mosque on Elm Street. But for whatever reason he couldn’t fit it into his hectic schedule. …

In most circumstances, it would be considered appallingly bad taste to deflect attention from an actual “hate crime” by scaremongering about a purely hypothetical one. Needless to say, there is no campaign of Islamophobic hate crimes. If anything, the West is awash in an epidemic of self-hate crimes. A commenter on Tim Blair’s Web site in Australia summed it up in a note-perfect parody of a Guardian headline: “Muslim Community Leaders Warn of Backlash from Tomorrow Morning’s Terrorist Attack.” Those community leaders have the measure of us.

Radical Islam is what multiculturalism has been waiting for all along. In “The Survival of Culture,” I quoted the eminent British barrister Helena Kennedy, Queen’s Counsel. Shortly after September 11, Baroness Kennedy argued on a BBC show that it was too easy to disparage “Islamic fundamentalists.” “We as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves,” she complained. “We don’t look at our own fundamentalisms.”

Well, said the interviewer, what exactly would those Western liberal fundamentalisms be? “One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I’m not sure that’s true.”

Hmm. Lady Kennedy was arguing that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance, which is intolerable. And, unlikely as it sounds, this has now become the highest, most rarefied form of multiculturalism. So you’re nice to gays and the Inuit? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of fellows like that, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti masochists. In other words, just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.