One of the sad ironies of the 21st century is that the European countries that were ruled by Marxists for forty-five years are now a refuge from the Cultural Marxism that rules in Western Europe and North America.

The following essay examines the death-grip that Cultural Marxism has on Western Europe. It was written by the Hungarian engineer and economist Károly Lóránt (see also his previous article) for the Hungarian daily Magyar Hírlap. Many thanks to CrossWare for the translation:

The submission of the Cultural Marxists

by Károly Lóránt
October 31, 2016

The population of Africa will increase by one billion in two decades, and the region can’t sustain such masses…

Hungary was the target of a huge number of attacks for building a fence and not accepting migrants. In addition to refuting this criticism, we should think about what motivates our critics, and what is our point of view.

Let’s look at the facts first. We know that immigration to Western Europe started in the 1960s in the form of guest workers who received permanent residence permits, and later their numbers multiplied with family reunifications. From the ‘90s onward increasingly large numbers arrived illegally from Middle Eastern and African countries. What happened to the migrants? Did they integrate into Western society as the politicians who invited them hoped, or their current descendants are hoping? The answer is a definite NO! While those Central European migrants from a similar culture (European, Christian) have been integrated, the mostly Muslim migrants from the Middle East or Africa ended up in ghettos. We can argue about whether no-go zones exist or not, but segregated ghettoization is a fact, so much so that the Danes have already worked out a concrete definition of it. According to the Danish government, a ghetto is a place where at least three of the following five criteria are fulfilled:

1.		At least 2.7% of the population has already been convicted of a crime;
2.		The income of the population is less than 55% of the average income of the region;
3.		For those between the ages of 30 and 59, more than 50% have no more than an elementary school education;
4.		More than 50% of the population is not from Western European countries;
5.		Between the ages of 18 and 64, more than 40% are not working and not going to school.

Based on the above criteria, in Denmark there are 34 ghettos, six of them in the Copenhagen area. Migrants living in these ghettos — mostly Muslims — do not wish to live by their host country’s laws, but by their own cultures and traditions, which means the teachings of Islam. According to a survey conducted by the WZB Social Science Center at the behest of the German Parliament, two-thirds of Turkish and Moroccan migrants state than Shariah is more important for them than the law of the host country. This attitude was supported by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who stated that Shariah should gain official status in the United Kingdom. Despite the wishes and statements of some Western leaders, we have proof that in Western Europe parallel societies have formed enclaves that are increasing in size and in time may join up, and in the long term will lead to the full Islamisation of Western Europe.

Another fact contained in the demographic forecasts asserts that the population of Africa will increase by one billion in two decades, which population — taking into account climate change — cannot be sustained there. It’s not hard to imagine what will happen if these people march en masse into Europe.

We must ask the question: do we want our countries to stay ours, or do we gradually submit to Islamic culture — maybe in the form described so vividly in the book by the French writer Michel Houellebecq, Submission? If the answer is NO, then it is clear what we must do: we must defend our country from illegal migrants and repeal the forced settlement attempts by the European Union based on their overbearing policies.

Is this a viewpoint that can be argued? Of course, and many argue it, too. The leaders of the EU still live under the illusion that large masses of migrants and their previously-arrived counterparts can be integrated successfully into European society. The latest proof of this delusion a publication called
“Action Plan on the integration of third country nationals” [pdf], which was released by the European Commission in June of this year. The material emphasizes that the main methods for integration are pre-selection, education and employment, and also the provision of basic services and active involvement into the local community. The publication does not even attempt to discuss any of the experiences of the previous decades. The politicians can’t say anything except to repeat Merkel’s mantra: “We can do it”! (Wir schaffen das) or what Sarkozy says: “The migrants must accept that their ancestors are the Gauls” or the resigned version: “We thought that… if you walked the streets of Copenhagen and drank the municipal water and rode the municipal bus, you’d soon become a Dane. It was so obvious to us, and therefore we thought that it must also be obvious for those who settled and lived here. It wasn’t.” (Queen Margrethe II of Denmark).

What is obvious for the migrants is much more visible from a Daily Express article from last year where a medical student who left the UK to join ISIS in Syria called for Shariah in his Twitter message. The journalist Leo McKinstry stated that in a healthy society such fanaticism would be treated with utter contempt. But he adds, “…sadly in recent decades, the moral self-confidence of the West has been shattered by the malignant doctrine of political correctness, which holds that it is racist to challenge any cultural practices brought by immigrants.”

Political correctness is a Marxist ideology, with roots going back to the period after the First World War, when the Marxists (György Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse) — disenchanted with the working class — created the Frankfurt School, which also used Freudian methods. Using Freud’s teachings they built new bases for Marxism, and placed cultural questions at the center instead of income distribution. This political school of thought was then called Cultural Marxism. Their method was Critical Theory, which in practice questioned the traditional Western values and institutions. Its methods were: sexual liberation, gender theory and support of all kind of minorities against the majority. People with a fondness for traditional values were called unstable, extremists and fascists. The representatives of this philosophy followed the tactics — as suggested by the German student leader Rudi Dutschke — of the “long march”: they occupied the institutional systems of the Western world, and their views became exclusive in all mainstream parties (both left and right), government and other offices, and finally the institutions of the European Union. Opposing voices were silenced by traditional communist methods: blacklisting, isolation, financial punishment, prison. A good example of this is the case of Ákos of Hungarian Telecom for defending the traditional model of the family.

[Ákos is a popular Hungarian pop star who holds conservative views. He had a sponsor contract with the Hungarian Telecom. When he gave an interview where answering a question he stated, he would love to see a society where women were not forced to have both a career and marriage, juggling all kind of responsibilities, which is next to impossible and responsible for the low birthrate and broken marriages, but instead were given the appropriate financial and societal appreciation for raising kids and providing a home. The liberals started screaming, and as punishment for stepping out of line, the company cancelled his sponsor contract, forcing him to abandon his national tour and causing him significant financial damage. Perhaps coincidentally, this was the very same company that later sold 200,000 SIM cards to terrorists! — Translator]

Central Europe has been freed up from traditional communist ideology, and outside of a liberal minority, is still free of Cultural Marxism, and that is why it strongly opposes the Establishment in the European Union and other Western countries. This explains the constant barrage of criticism received by Hungary from Western politicians and the Western media.

In the meantime the Cultural Marxists’ principles and political correctness will not able to solve the problems caused by mass immigration or integrate those already arrived. For this reason sooner or later in one form or another — for example, by strengthening non-establishment parties — a more sober assessment of the situation will come into view. In that case the value system of the eastern part of the EU — including Hungary — may be accepted by the new leadership of the Western countries, just as it is already accepted by the Western societies, as proven by the comments written under Hungary-bashing articles.

Looking at the facts concerning migration and the expected future pressure from migration, the way to protect Hungarian interests is to continue to defend our views and wait for a change. We must also think about how to help to defuse the problems in the countries where the migration pressure is coming from.