In the discussion at the Brussels Journal which I referred to in my previous post, Racial Obsession, commenter Marcfrans is the most interesting case. As far as I can judge he's something of a neo-conservative, pro-Christian right-winger. His stance shows clearly to us, what is a major point of mine, that the poison is not unique for the leftists or liberals. Marcfrans has sided with political correctness and multiculturalism, even if he would deny it, and try to put the blame on leftists.
Here's what I wrote in my last reply:
We are back in the '30s again. With persecution and harassment of the Jews. Jews fleeing our countries. And with the parliament of the street by stormtroopers, back then in brown shirts, while today with black clothes and ski-masks. Most people didn't notice, or cared to notice, that this was going on back in the '30s. They were simply to comfortable, cowardly and irresponsible. Likewise, most people don't notice, or care to notice, today.
Let's send Marcfrans back to the '30s. A Jew comes running down the street, having just escaped a rain of stones of a nearby pogrom. He turns to Marcfrans for help, and Marcfrans tells him that there is nothing to worry about, because throwing stones like that in the streets is illegal. Then he lectures the Jew about how we live in a democracy, and that if he is not fully content with the situation of the country he lives in, he should just turn to his member of parliament, so that his issues can be dealt with in a democratic way. Giving people lectures in this way gives Marcfrans a high sensation of self-righteousness. I doesn't worry him the least that his words are empty and have no connection to reality. But is Marcfrans merely innocently naive or is he also complicit in the atrocities?
Back to the 21st century. The mob rule of the stormtroopers is again like it was in the '30s, only under different symbols. It's a rule of political correctness (originally a Stalinist invention). The keyword for the veritable lynch mob to set after someone is today "racist!". 'Racist' a word that effectively has the same ostracizing function as 'kafir' has among the Muslims. Or as calling out "contra-revolutionary" or "capitalist pig" after someone under Maoism or Stalinism. So is Marcfrans innocent here? Is he just neutral in the situation, defending his Panglossian dream? I think not. He has clearly sided with political correctness. He is eager to call out "racist" against anyone who is not staying within the pole marks of multiculturalism. Well aware of that this is the call for projecting the collective hate of the mob against that person. Quite as all other PCs, Marcfrans takes pride in using "racist" as carelessly as possible. It is seen as a way of showing that you are faithful to the cause.
Dear Marcfrans, it is not possible to take a middle position regarding Nazism, Maoism, Stalinism or multiculturalism. These ideologies are so extreme that a middle position effectively means supporting it. Don't support something that you will deeply regret when you get older!