Beware the Politically Correct Prophets of Wrath
No profession has had as much success as the profession of prophet.
Although there has never yet been a secondary or higher institution for the training of prophets, there have been and still are plenty of prophets.
I am not a prophet - maybe because, through my professional knowledge, I know how difficult it is to correctly predict the weather. However, I do notice the existence of the most popular variety of prophets - "prophets of wrath," that is, prophets who predict bad news. A prophet of wrath is the name given to a person, leader, thinker, or ordinary citizen, who sharply criticizes the society in which he lives and to which he predicts destruction or disaster on the path it is on unless it adopts his prescription for correction.
In my line of work, I have been engaged in scientific research in various Western countries. As I have been a guest in many places, local colleagues have told me what a dysfunctional and unwise country they live in and how that country is tragically marching toward the abyss.
A person living in a democratic, Western country is sharply critical of the mistakes being made by his government, which he prophesies are leading to disaster. I have heard these angry prophecies in different languages in different Western democracies. Completely different people convinced me, and even earlier themselves, what fatal mistakes his government and the part of society that supports him are making by not paying attention to the prophecies of him and his associates. Such alarmism is characteristic of a democratic country. In a totalitarian state, such alarming predictions are dangerous for the life and health of the prophet, because in such a country, according to its regime, the situation can only improve.
In 2009, President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize. The award ceremony took place just a week after the U.S. president announced the dispatch of an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Obama was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army fighting the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. So, Obama doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. So, what did he get it for? I propose this answer: he received the Nobel Peace Prize for "progressive thinking." On the same basis, that is, without any basis whatsoever, his former deputy, current President Joe Biden, could have received the Nobel Peace Prize. This is not the first time that the Nobel Committee has awarded not for peace, but rather for political correctness.
"Progressive thinking" of people concerned about the fate of immigrants embraces alarmists in France. Arabs fleeing national independence in the Maghreb began to fill the Fourth and then the Fifth French Republic. They didn't need battles. They came with "white flags" and "surrendered" to the mercy of the French taxpayer, against whom they fought for independence at home and who now has to pay for their dependence on him in France. There are probably more believing Muslims in France than believing Christians. Arabs don't have to explode bombs to conquer France, a population explosion is enough. France is trying to integrate Muslim immigrants through multiculturalism.
The foundations of multiculturalism were laid in the writings of Frankfurt School neo-Marxists Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, prophets of wrath who disliked Western civilization. Multiculturalism originated as an ideology of protest against Western culture, against its "overwhelming" aspect. Multiculturalism is the concept that it is permissible to preserve the culture, religion and identity of the new inhabitants of European countries. One of its ideas is the renunciation of nationalism, conservatism with its "heavy-handed" morality and Christian religiosity.
Immigrants have detached themselves from the nationally and religiously faceless French. They are proud of their religious characteristics and values. They are repulsed by a Western civilization devoid of its own religious content. Integration in a culturally impersonal society that imposes secular education and hard peaceful labor is difficult for them. Only the isolation of immigrants is possible.
In France, the thoughts and aspirations of Islamic citizens are read from left to right, as they should be in French. The correct reading should be, however, in Arabic - from right to left. The French are going after immigrants and their descendants.
The French refer to their country less and less as France and more and more as a "republic," emphasizing the prevalence of democratic values over national values. Where is a country going in which it is indecent to speak of its French identity, national culture and Christian religion? The famous motto of the Great French Revolution "liberty, equality, fraternity" is being replaced by liberty, equality and Muslim brotherhood, which does not need liberty, equality and fraternity.
The ideology of multiculturalism turned out to be a Utopia that fit into the liberals' concept of a "supranational world." The idea that all people can rise above their cultural and ethnic differences to build a liberal tolerant society with equal rights and freedoms for all cultures has failed.
Back in 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel recognized the complete failure of the policy of multiculturalism: "Our approach was multiculturalism, that we would live side by side and value each other. This approach has failed, utterly failed." The mechanism for destroying the centuries-old values of Western civilization laid down back in the late 1960s by the prophets of wrath of the Frankfurt School is successfully working. Political scientist Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations, "Multiculturalism at home threatens the United States and the West; universalism abroad threatens the West and the world. Both deny the uniqueness of Western culture [...] A multicultural America is impossible because an America that is not Western is no longer American."
A world of universal tolerance exists only in the fantasies of politically correct false prophets.
Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License