A note from Radarsite: In response to our previous article from Lionheart, The Takeover, honoring the life and work of Orianai Fallaci, we are reposting this original article from December 9, 2007. It is hoped that this small essay will contribute to our discussion of this New Left, this treacherous internationalist political and ideological menace, which currently threatens the very foundations of our nation, and yet is still so widely misunderstood and misinterpreted.
As is so often the case with some of the world's most destructive ideologies, they are born from the honest and high-minded efforts of intellectuals, politicians, and historians to right a perceived societal wrong, often coupled with a desire to redress the purported victimization of a people or a nation.
One cannot fathom the power of these revolutionary movements without at least attempting to understand their appeal. Few if any successful revolutionary movements were based on the embrace of the dark side of human nature; on the contrary, most were clothed in the shining raiment of goodness and equity. The most violent excesses of the French Revolution were -- at least, originally -- carried out in the firm belief that they were working for the betterment of mankind. The fervor with which these Great Causes were embraced by so many otherwise 'normal' people did not come from their perception of themselves or The Cause as the virtual incarnation of Evil, but rather as the victory of the Good. Whether we are contemplating Islamism, Fascism, Nazism or Communism, or even the rise of an unmitigated monster such as a Pol Pot or an Osama bin Laden, we cannot comprehend these sweeping political upheavals without first acknowledging their loyal adherents' unquestioned self-perception as the embodiment of justice and righteousness. The road to hell is paved with such well-intentioned movements.
The closest this contentious world has ever come to achieving true social equity has been in those modern nations which have embraced the combined principles of freedom, capitalism, and democracy. They are simply the most judicious and honorable systems yet devised. Unfortunately, this glaring truth does not render these privileged societies impervious to the machinations of those who know better, those who understand history better, and can better interpret its meanings, those who have conceptualized a better vision of the future, embodied in a better system. There is always a 'better system' out there. And as we have seen to our despair, oftentimes those same old ugly lies reappear in the guise of some newer 'better system', and subsequently a whole new generations of believers is born.
Thus we now have our New Left. A New Left which really isn't all that new; and yet, despite its undeniable previous history of abject failure and brutal oppression, it still manages to attract a whole new roster of converts. And once again, this is not because it appeals to the evil hearts and minds of these newest disciples, but rather beckons to their higher selves. They believe that they have a better grasp of historical truth than the rest of us. They believe that they have the answers for the rest of us. And, as with all those other monumental idealistic disasters that have befallen mankind, they will be our ruin unless we can stop them. And we cannot hope to stop them unless and until we understand them. - rg
If I understand it correctly, the argument of the liberal, multicultural, internationalist left goes like this. Over the course of history, the concept of nationhood has been thoroughly discredited: it has wrought nothing but divisiveness and trouble to the world community. The two greatest and most destructive wars in human history were the direct result of the opposing selfish ambitions of several major nation states. Nationalism breeds patriotism; patriotism breeds chauvinism; chauvinism, in turn, breeds ultra-nationalism -- or as it is more commonly known, fascism. Therefore, for the sake of world peace, the idea of individualistic nations with finite borders and selfish agendas must be done away with completely and forever and replaced by the more rational, humanistic concept of internationalism.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the left lost its champion for the worldwide movement of internationalism, which it had hoped would defeat the self-interested powers of nationalism and capitalism. Following the disintegration of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R., and the abject failure of communism in general, the left had to look for a new paradigm, and for new leaders. Not surprisingly, the new left would find its leaders amongst the liberal intelligentsia, who were, themselves, largely products of the radical protest movements of the Sixties and the "cultural elite".
This new social revolution would be led by artists, writers, academics and left-leaning politicians of the world who would unite to create a new internationalist order. Whereas the goals of the Communist state-based old left were primarily political, the new left's battles are primarily cultural -- political power, as such, is seen only as a means to an end.
This internationalist new left is ideologically opposed to any intrinsic national characteristics -- such as, language, monetary systems, customs, etc. -- which would set one nation apart from another. Most particularly, they are opposed to borders -- borders, after all, define nations, which, as has been proven, are a fundamentally disruptive and dangerous concept. Secondly, once the whole construct of nationhood is done away with, then those intransigent problems of racism and immigration (two issues high on the new left's agenda) would disappear.
In the last several decades Europe has already moved (perhaps irreversibly) in this direction, with its creation of the European Union, the introduction of the Euro, the pan-European capitol at Brussels, with its International Court at the Hague and, of course, its "moral" opposition the the "nationalistic" United States.
More ominously, Europe's intrinsic cultural identity is in the process of being obliterated by the mass influx of (mostly Muslim) immigrants who, rather than assimilate, more often than not form their own separate enclaves, follow their own cultural leaders and laws, and continue speaking their own languages. Less and less do these new immigrants show any sense of affiliation with, or loyalty toward their new European host countries.* In fact, in many instances, they thoroughly despise these liberal societies which they have infiltrated and actively seek to tear them down from within and replace them with something more "internationalist", like the universal religion of Islam. Unfortunately, far from being some compassionate, all-encompassing, peace-loving world order, this radical form of jihadist Islam -- whose rights the new leftists so passionately defend -- is, in the end, far more tyrannical and fascistic than any of these so-called brutal imperialist nations that they would like to do away with.
These ideological battles with the forces of the multicultural, internationalist new left and their allies at the ACLU, the universities, Hollywood and the media, etc., are being played out daily in our own country with our ongoing and hotly contested debates over border enforcement, immigration legislation, English language issues, illegal alien rights, racial profiling, etc.
The new left's Utopian and monumentally ambitious goal is to eventually have an America without borders, either northern or southern, a North American Union, similar in concept to the EU, a thoroughly homogeneous socialist society, minus, of course, any culturally unique Americans, governed by international laws, adjudicated by international courts.
These current societal conflicts are essentially battles of migration, similar to the great Germanic migrations that overwhelmed the increasingly vulnerable Roman Empire of the third, fourth and fifth centuries. They are battles of demographics. And they are battles that, for various reasons, the peoples of the Western Democracies are losing.
However violent and bloody they might be, the most serious threats to our democratic societies do not necessarily come from these well-publicized, intermittent terrorist attacks but, rather, from these insidious -- and seemingly unstoppable -- ubiquitous cultural invasions, against which we, in our liberal and open societies seem woefully incapable of defending ourselves.
*[According to Claire Berlinski in "Menace in Europe", over 30% of European Muslims believe that Europe is evil and decadent and deserves to be overthrown and replaced by Islam. Whereas, Benjamin and Simon state in their book, "The Sacred Age of Terror", that 98% of London's Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain.]
This article was first published by Political Grind July 7, 2007.