This pattern is easily observable in Cambridge, MA and on most university campuses. The oppressed are women, black Americans, and homosexuals. They are lately joined by Muslims and illegal aliens. Oppressors remain heterosexual white men, even those who were born poor in broken homes and were oppressed in reality by the above three major "oppressed" groups. Turning the world upside down is nothing new. Propagandists have done it for many years. Clueless citizens believe what they hear and ignore what they see. It explains why the current occupant of the White House is so strangely successful in modern day America. He is one of the "oppressed."
[From article]
It's tempting to think of the Islamist threat and its terrorist outrages as special and unique and unprecedented. But suppose we just call it “The Muslim Question.” Then it has a curious familiarity; it seems like an echo of something we've heard before.
I'll tell you what that something was. It was the “Social Question” of the 19th century.
[. . .]
The smart Jewish kid Karl Marx and his trustafarian friend Friedrich Engels came up with a revolutionary response. Their plan was to enlist the working class in a civil war against its capitalist exploiters. Then there was the Fabian/Progressive response, what I call “little darling” politics, which experienced the working class as special snowflakes in need of maternal care and feeding. And in need of treats.
In the United States the Social Question was experienced more as an immigration crisis. First it was the Irish, tumbling out of the “coffin ships” more dead than alive, followed by the southern Italians taking ship from Genoa, and the Jews escaping the 1905 pogroms. After these three groups had assimilated to the American Way of Life, a new migration got started, with African Americans from the rural South, Hispanics came from Latin America, and Asians from all over.
In our time the revolutionary response and the “little darling” response to the Social Question have merged into what I call the “activism” culture. Our educated ruling class teaches that there are three kinds of people: the oppressors, the oppressed and the champions of the oppressed. The only ethical choice is to march and peacefully protest on behalf of the oppressed and fight the oppressors.
[. . .]
the post-WWII group of immigrants played their victim parts to perfection. They allowed the liberal ruling class to speak for them, and marched and protested more or less as directed.
[. . .]
But now we are face to face with the Muslim Question, the question of the millions of Muslims that have immigrated to the West in the past generation and that have remained peculiarly separate from the Western culture, partly by reason of the cultural strength of Islam and partly from the multiculturalist ruling class that encourages their “little darlings” in self-segregation.
[. . .]
There was Communism – 100 million deaths -- that longed for a return to the community of a primitive communism; then there was Fascism – 20 million deaths -- that longed for the comfort food of tribe and land, blood and soil. It took a world war and a cold war to turn back these murderous atavisms.
Now the post-industrial West is digesting a new immigration. And it's also facing a new atavism, one that wants to revert to the tribalism of the desert.
The question about the Muslim Question is whether the Muslims will get with the program, as did most previous waves of immigrants to the city, or whether they will require what Charles Dickens' Murdstones called “firmness,” as was needed for Communism and Fascism.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/lets_just_call_it_the_muslim_question.html
January 13, 2015
Let's Just Call It 'The Muslim Question'
By Christopher Chantrill
No comments:
Post a Comment