A Lackey for the European State

EU Skull Dragon

The following op-ed was posted on Thursday at the Jyllands-Posten blog. Many thanks to Henrik Ræder Clausen for the translation, which was originally published at Europe News:

This Here Obviously Totalitarian Enterprise
By Morten Uhrskov Jensen

The European Union is moving rapidly towards becoming a totalitarian empire. It is becoming a place where dissidents are to keep their mouths shut, unless they want to suffer the consequences in the form of punishments, fines, imprisonment and exclusion from the community.

In its newest initiative, the European Commission doesn’t even bother to conceal its intention. The title of it, which could not have been beaten by any great ideologist of the 20th century is:

Accept Pluralism

One cannot help but notice the imperative form here. This is no invitation to join in. This is no friendly proposal to behave in some particular way. This is a direct order.

It is the purpose of this new Big Brother institute to “explore adequate policy responses” for politicians to act upon. Fifteen countries are represented in what is called a “Consortium”, 14 EU countries and Turkey, termed an “accession country”, a country on the path to membership.

Delightful job creation

It must be delightful for industrious academics from Denmark and other EU countries to consider the career opportunities in this. And as a bailiff, a lackey for the European State. As the person wielding the knife against his primitive fellow citizens, ordering them to love Big Brother.

And you can rest assured that, just as in the George Orwell masterpiece, the powers that be shall not rest or falter, until the last of the Europeans loves Big Brother with all his heart, loves pluralism — in the sense that the European Union defines it.

This is seriously sick.

11 thoughts on “A Lackey for the European State

  1. Accept Pluralism

    What if that delightful plurality perforce seeks to include those who have absolutely no intention of accepting or participating in a pluralistic society; save in how that acceptance or participation can fulfill their own very un-pluralistic agenda?

    Were it not so deeply disturbing it would be rather hilarious to watch EU apparatchiks go about the singularly thankless and Sisyphean task of integrating Muslim immigrants via their usual government by fiat.

    The monumental hubris of seeking to impose by mandamus upon Europeans and Muslims alike that which Islam deems utterly haram defies all description. With Islam it is not just government by fiat but life by fiat.

    Throughout its entire history Islam has remained one of, if not the, most decidedly un-pluralistic entities on earth. Dhimmitude notwithstanding, Islam epitomizes a monolithic creed whose internal exceptions only serve to prove the overarching rule of its ultimately sterilizing homogeneity.

    While researching materials today for another essay here at Gates of Vienna, I stumbled upon a comment posted by a reader, named “Jen”, of the San Francisco Chronicle, no less:

    If Islam puts itself before the principles of the United States, then we can’t use those principles to defend it.

    In an equal manner, if Islam conclusively rejects plurality then seeking a plurality with Muslims must be rejected out of hand. One can only suppose that the EU’s petty tyrants suffer in an equal measure as Muslims do from delusions of adequacy.

  2. The two first (so far only) entries in the ACCEPT PLURALISM blog are about:

    1) Multikulti is not dead – European states are (in the view of the PLURALISTS ‘fortunately’) still funding imam educations and the like. As I’d expect, ‘PLURALISM’ has become an euphemism for Islam.

    2) David Cameron and the English Defence League are BAD. The former due to his talk of ‘Muscular liberalism’ (a good term, BTW), the latter due to their demand that England remains English.

    It’s utterly ridiculous that such a project can get funding…

  3. Accept pluralism just seems like a reject from when more talented copywriters came up with celebrate diversity. Why not just use the more attractive expression?

  4. Of course, if everyone accepts pluralism, it’s not pluralistic since everyone is the same. Pluralism is singularistic, inclusivity excludes, diversity means homogeny. Eat your heart out Orwell.

  5. This is what the left intended the EU to be from the beginning, they are simply moving to create their idea of heaven. A place where they get to order everyone around and you can’t talk back to them.

  6. “We may want the Prime Minister to acknowledge the vile nature of the EDL. “

    Doesnt sound like accepting diversity to me…demonizing the EDL as vile, a group that isnt welcome in this new diversity paradise.

    “Principles of equality and respect need to be defended—and this requirement has nothing to do with muscularity but with the core decency that we owe fellow citizens and non-citizens.”

    Not much core decency in calling the EDL vile, is there? The problem is that liberalism not only needs to be defended, but asserted…which is where the muscular part comes in.

    “We should not be so vain as to bask in the glory of our liberal achievements, which are at any rate incomplete and in need of constant defence.”

    We need to confidently acknowledge those liberal achievements, and assert that they are superior to other societies and civilizatons. That is part of defending liberalism. That they are imperfect is without question. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

    “Cameron’s call for a ‘muscular liberalism’ resonates with a situation where attitudes are hardened and where the space for equality and respect is diminished.”

    The space for equality and respect were diminished by Islam and its agents, and the expansion of those agents via mass immigration. Do not blame liberals for hardening opposition to the Nazis or Communists or Islamists. That is an old game of moral inversion which blames the good guys/liberal ideology for their imperfect but necessary response to the bad guys/evil ideology.

    “Liberalism is harnessed and mobilized with exclusionary force against allegedly illiberal populations.”

    Your problem is that you havent acknowledged that their are illiberal populatioins, namely Muslims. Or rather you have identified the EDL as illiberal populations for their resistance to illiberal Islam. Just as you insane Leftists did with regards to Western peoples resistance to Communism/Marxism/Socialism. Moral inversion. The same as you demonize Israel and Israeli Jews for protecting themselves from Islamic genociders and terrorists, naming the security fence that ended the wanton murder of Israeli men, women, and children by bombers, suicide or otherwise…as an Apartheid Wall.

    You are aiding and abetting illiberal forces, giving them comfort and support…not the EDL, or the Americans, or the Christians, or the Israelis, or the Jews.

  7. Only a kid like David Cameron could coin a term like “Muscular Liberalism”. “Liberalism” wont seem so legitimate when it’s forced on populations, consider Turkey, or better yet, Northern Ireland.

    My point? If the liberals say they want to criminalise “extremism” or better yet fight it in the streets (Northern Ireland) it means they can’t fairly win the argument.

    But we knew that anyway.

  8. I dont think he coined that term. Its been in use amongst the Decent Left for some time, and is similar to the term Muscular Christianity.

    from wikipedia…

    Muscular Christianity is a term for a movement during the Victorian era which stressed the need for energetic Christian activism in combination with an ideal of vigorous masculinity. It was most associated with the English writers Charles Kingsley and Thomas Hughes, though the name was bestowed by others.

    Kingsley and Hughes promoted physical strength and health (at least for men) as well as an active pursuit of Christian ideals in personal life and politics.

    The term has also been applied to later movements that combine physical and Christian spiritual development.

    end quote

    I happen to agree with Muscular Christianity and Muscular Liberalism. They are both defending European traditional societies and institutions. Liberalism having its more original meaning and not Leftwingism.

  9. also from wikipedia

    “By 1901, muscular Christianity was influential enough in England that one author could praise “the Englishman going through the world with rifle in one hand and Bible in the other” and add, “If asked what our muscular Christianity has done, we point to the British Empire.”[7]”

    end quote

Comments are closed.