A French lady, a friend of mine, told me last year of an unpleasant experience she was victim of on social media. She is a lover of motorbikes, and she was expressing her point of view on politics, a few months before presidential elections last year: she just could not believe it when she saw that one of the ladies she was chatting with, wrote she wished my friend would die in a motorbike accident. I must admit that my friend is an awful bigot: she was voting for François Fillon, a conservative (whereas the lady who wished her dead was left wing).
Each single one of us may have had a similar experience.
Last 9th of March, the day after the international day of women rights, a male antifa attacked a right wing journalist, Lucy Brown. Not sure he was aware that day is just an incentive for men to be respectful of women all year long.
I just wondered how come could people consider that others deserve violence, for the simple reason they have a different opinion to theirs. Even more, how come can they think they can judge others from their moral high ground, when they just prove it to be fake by their own behaviour? How indecent!
And this is the point: decency or indecency, good or bad, moral or immoral, and why not pure or sinful? But, but, but… Who may present themselves as the judges of good or bad? Cannot we discuss facts? Express our questions, our objections, our disagreement, without being automatically labelled with bigotry, hatred, intolerance? Is this not true democracy: Always questioning what even is stood for granted, in mutual respect of ideas and of individuals?
What kind of mindset can allow somebody to wish death to someone else without being able to look at oneself and their own so intolerant behaviour?
It’s a magic, mystic, childish way of thinking, like “I am part of the good people, and you, you are part of the naughty ones”. From adults it’s astounding. What can this mystic value no one can question at the risk of death penalty, at least socially speaking?
Please tell me what the goldfish in a tank does not see? The glass of the tank? The people who look at the fish? No, it the water it swins in.
What is the mystic atmosphere our society (which I would call our post-democratic society) is swimming in?
What is this mysticism no one must question? Leaders like Emmanuel Macron in France and Justin Trudeau in Canada appears as the quintessence of globalism, in which nations are an outdated notion, which must be replaced by a new world, a world where cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, are interchangeable: the “world village”.
At the end of the day, it may be that the world village is the ultimate hope for our society. Each single one is entitled to believe so. Fair enough. And each single one is entitled to question this idea without taking it for granted.
It is likely that our elites considered that, to reach their aim of a world village, there would be some collateral damage. A revolution, even a soft one, is unlikely to succeed without any damage.
Now then, were the people asked whether they approved all of what it meant? Had we been told globalism would mean having so called “social cohesion” (different cultures living together) and having a period of terrorism, would have we accepted the deal?
But nowadays, whoever questions the so-called “social cohesion” is badly considered by society. What do we find more valuable: our childrens’ life, or the hypothetic hope of a global village where everyone will be happy in mutual agreement and respect? We have to prioritize. It has become a question of life or death. Which is most important? If we are ready, in view of this ideal world village, to accept that some of our children die, aren’t we up to sacrifice them on the altar of multiculturalism, which de facto becomes THE ultimate religion? Is such a mindset any different from the one denounced more than 2000 years ago by prophet Jeremiah to some Israelites (Jeremiah 19:5): “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind”?
A similar mysticism seems to take place in the heart of worshippers of multiculturalism: he must not be questioned. Anyone who accepts (worships) can only, in their views, be good. Anyone who accept it becomes morally pure, morally superior to anybody who would question it. And these worshippers of multiculturalism feel then entitled to judge anybody from their mystic moral high ground: even any misbehaviour they could have becomes sanctified from their belonging to… the Sect. There is no other word.
This sect promises the world village, where everyone will be part of one people speaking one language. It could be a magnificent hope.
Curiously, this mystic thought of a world where men are only one people and speak one language is found in the allegory of the tower of Babel: “Yahweh said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is what they begin to do. Now nothing will be withheld from them, which they intend to do” (Genesis 11:6). The allegoric becomes prophetic, and is obviously a warning against world elites, from whom nothing would be withheld – at our expense.