|University created by our European ancestors now used by cultural Marxists to destroy European Ethnicity|
This article utilizes Costica Dumbrava's leftist rejection of Liav Orgad's right wing "liberal theory of majority rights" to argue that these two sides of the same coin constitute a cultural Marxist perversion of the true European liberal tradition. Dumbrava is the "executive coordinator" of the Maastricht Centre for Citizenship, Migration, and Development, located in The Netherlands. This Centre's mission embodies both the liberal right capitalist advocacy of "cross-border labour mobility" and the liberal left advocacy of radical diversification under the cover of humanitarian sensibilities.
In a previous article at CEC, Orgad's theory was interpreted as a civic defence of European cultural identity, an effort to co-opt the growing populist discontent and nationalism of Europeans. Orgad has developed a theory of majority rights that is novel in breaking with the decades-old liberal obsession with minority rights. But in essence his theory is no more than a scholarly elaboration of a long standing effort by the mainstream right to encourage immigrant assimilation. The goal of Orgad's theory is to frame immigration in ways that do not threaten the political culture of Europe and certain symbols such as the nation's flag, anthem, and official language, while pretending that racial replacement is not an issue.
Dumbrava is a left wing multicultural liberal who believes that any effort to frame immigration in these terms is illiberal by definition for it implies "exclusion" of certain immigrants perceived to be too different from the majority cultural norms.
Dumbrava says that one cannot define the majority European culture in liberal constitutional terms and, at the same time, call for "exclusionary" immigration policies. I agree, except that my understanding of liberalism is very different. The only way that one can restrict immigration is by arguing up front that
- there is nothing in the liberal philosophical outlook that morally obliges European nations to become immigrant nations or diversify themselves, and
- the preservation of the ethnic integrity of Europeans is a fundamental liberal right.
Cultural Marxist Takeover of Liberalism
Liberalism was taken over by New Left Marxists during the 1960s. One of the most sinister results of this phenomenon was the extension of the liberal principle that minorities rooted within a nation should be accorded equal rights of citizenship, including rights of self-government to "national minorities" (like the Quebecois, Catalan, or Flemish), into an argument that liberal nations, if they were to live up to their principles, must strive to overcome the privileging of any ethnic identity by creating a national culture that is multicultural and that accommodates immigrants.
However different the liberal arguments have been about the nature of this accommodation, whether immigrants should assimilate to existing norms (Orgad), whether they need certain "special group rights" to protect themselves from discrimination and to maintain various aspects of their customs which "do not" counter liberal principles, regarding dress, religious practices, and food (Will Kymlicka), or whether they should be accorded full communal (though not national) rights to protect themselves from the dissolving effects of modernity (Charles Taylor), all these theoretical efforts have been articulated in-and-through the transformation of liberalism into a theory calling for a totally new form of immigrant multicultural citizenship across the West against the original European principle of national citizenship.
The notion that immigrant multicultural citizenship is intrinsic to liberalism is one of the biggest theoretical deceptions carried by academics in human history.
Orgad agrees with the fundamentals of this New Left liberalism, and that is why all right wing liberal views about immigration restriction never go beyond calls for security measures to exclude Muslim radicals. Trump's modest call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration was perceived by the Republican establishment to be against the constitutional principles of America.
The truth is that liberalism originated in ethnically homogeneous states and there is nothing in the philosophical tradition of liberalism that identifies the existence of ethnic states as inherently illiberal and in need of immigration. But after WWII, and with intensity since the 1960s, two currents emerged within the cultural Marxists who took over liberalism. First, a liberal right wing current maintaining that Western liberal states were from the beginning civic states that were "neutral" with reference to ethnic kinship, historical ancestry, literature, and religion. Second, a left wing current maintaining that Western states were not "neutral" but instead had been "deliberately" privileging a majority ethnic group; for example, the Anglo in Canada and Australia.
Leftists, the far more influential in academia, argued that Western states had a history of forcing long established minorities within to assimilate to the culture of the majority in a discriminatory fashion. This is true, and to the extent that they did this, they were illiberal (following the rationale of liberal theory). But then Western states, by the 1960s/1970s, had ceased to sponsor discrimination against domestic minorities, and had even began a process of granting "national minorities" such as Aboriginals the right to autonomous territories, not to forget the expansion of the welfare state and "social rights" to help integrate previously excluded groups.
The question then is: why did liberals continue to argue that Western nations were still coming short of their liberal values unless they diversified themselves through mass immigration? There is no other way but to conclude that the expansion of the liberal principle of citizenship into immigrant multicultural citizenship was a result of the take-over of liberalism by cultural Marxists after WWII/1960s. It was this take over that produced a new liberalism for which the very existence of majority White nations was deemed to be testimony of the ""persistence" of "racial underrepresentation" and "cultural invisibility."
While liberalism has a rich philosophical heritage in the West, this new perverted form of liberalism, notwithstanding its academic character, mountains of publications, intelligent authors, is ultimately based on a very flimsy foundation, since its beginning point, that liberal nations require immigrant diversity, is inconsistent with the true principles of liberalism, none of which call for the radical transformation of the racial make up of nations, for mass importation of millions of non-citizens, and for the creation of mongrelized cultures.
I am not particularly concerned with Dumbrava, a guy who just adopted thoughtlessly this perverted liberalism. But as the executive coordinator of the Maastricht Centre for Citizenship, Migration, and Development, he is worth engaging with as a representative of a powerful institution.
|Totally brainwashed graduates of Maastricht taught to believe that liberalism = mass immigration and race mixing|
This highly influential Centre, attached to Maastricht University, located in The Netherlands, is totally into the promotion of "cross-border mobility" and human rights for migrants. It exemplifies in full explicitness the convergence of the Left and the Right on the most crucial political issue of our times: immigration. This Centre is described
as a hub of research, consultancy, knowledge exchange, and training activities...focuses on cross-border labour mobility, international services, and improving the investment and business climate.It seeks to create inside Europe "good and inviting settlements in order to attract international knowledge workers and their families." The researchers participate
in large international research networks...in the field of migration, work mobility and social security, citizenship and security. The partner institutions are universities, research institutes and think tanks within the Euregion and the EU but also in Asia, Africa, Australia, Canada and the United States.The Centre is within a university with ample grants to hand out for economic "development" and for humanitarian goals, as you can see here and here. One of its major research themes is migrant families:
how families operate across borders: the ties that are maintained, forged and transformed, the changes in social customs that this engenders and what effects it has for migrants as well as the people who stay in the country of origin.The children, the children:
This project investigates the effects of circulation on children's lives according toTo infertile European couples it announces a
a) the children's own perceptions;
b) parents' perceptions, and
c) school assessments.
The focus falls on effects relating to educational and emotional well being outcomes. As a multi-sited project, it will follow children between The Netherlands and an African country.
project [that] examines the pre and post-adoption perspectives of the adoptive triad stretching between China (the world's leading donor of children for adoption) and Spain (Europe's leading recipient). Combining tools from narratology and ethnography, it reveals submerged scripts on the weaving of family that are disseminated by adoptive origin stories in order to explicate the kinship values they imply.Post modernists, feminists, doctors, sociologists, ethnographers, everyone, can play a role in this project. There are multiple projects of this nature, all intended to transform the Dutch and Europeans into mongrel citizens of the world performing charitable acts for migrants while attending shopping malls energized by cross-border mobility.
This is the executive coordinator:
|Dumbrava: Claims to be an edgy guy making it easier for migrants to settle in Europe regardless of cultural affinities|
What else does this this guy find objectionable about Orgad? He writes:
Although liberal states can and should seek to ensure widespread respect for constitutional principles, they cannot do so by way of ethno-cultural engineering.Do you follow the logic here? European nations not accepting immigrants from multiple racial backgrounds are engaged in "ethno-cultural engineering." Wanting to retain millennial European identities constitutes ethno-cultural engineering. This is how utterly stupid liberalism has become; they teach this garbage to millions of students.
Again, there is nothing in the liberal tradition that calls in principle for diversification. Most of the nations of Europe were created in association with liberal constitutions, and in this creation the cardinal principle was the sovereignty of the nationals to decide their own destiny. By definition, nations can only be said to be nations if they are sovereign, and sovereignty is intrinsically about the self-determination of the people who constitute the nation. National sovereignty, the dictionary says,
is the idea that independent nations, which have declared their independence, have an organized government and are self-contained, have a right to exist without other nations interfering. It is essentially the unspoken rule of a nation's right to exist.The liberal nations of Europe were not mere "inventions" or functional requirements of modernity, they were factually rooted in the past, in common myths of descent, primordially based on a population with a collective sense of kinship.
Dumbrava says that any effort to "preserve" a majority group within Europe is an effort to promote this "group's dominant position in the state beyond strict considerations of justice."
Why would it be a form of domination to preserve the integrity of the founders of a nation against their reduction to minority status? When Canada was 96 percent ethnically European in the 1960s, polls showed that over 60 percent thought that the fairly low levels of Asian immigration (at the time) were already too high. However, in complete disregard of Canadian democratic wishes, the borders of Canada were set wide open in the 1970s/80s to immigrants from the Third World under the directives of the leaders of the major parties, the media, universities, and business elites. This is what we should call "domination" — by a minority elite over a majority democratic base.
Dumbrava is a minor peon, but the ideas he has absorbed are dominant. We must not let these impostors misappropriate our Western traditions. There is nothing in the liberal tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, or John Stuart Mill, that can be associated with the words of this pathological German leftist liberal of today: