By Alex Gordon
The Greek word χάος means “void, abyss,” from the verb χαίνω, “to gape, to be wide open,” and the cognate Old English geanian, “to gape, to open.”
The relationship between spiritual collapse and the decay of moral and social order is a common theme in the prophets, especially Isaiah.
In election campaigns in democracies, struggling parties threaten voters that the victory of the enemy represents the end of democracy for their country and the advent of dictatorship in it.
But there is a far greater threat to a country than the weakening of its democracy — it is chaos, anarchy, the loosening and even disintegration of civil society, and perhaps even civil war.
Anarchists threaten not the existence of democracy, but the existence of the state. The system formed after these perturbations will not necessarily become totalitarian, as the fighters for democracy threaten, i.e., it may not be about the loss of freedom, but about the loss of the order of governing the country. A functional dictatorship, like Singapore and even China, may be better for citizens than the chaos of state collapse, because it provides stabilization of society.
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations taking place in the U.S. are far more threatening to the U.S. than the Israel they target. The pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses oppose the Democrat party’s vision of a solution to the Middle East conflict — two states for two peoples — as they fight for one state for the Arab Palestinian people instead of one Jewish state: they demand the liberation of Palestine from the Israelis, “from river to sea.”
In this way, they act as an opposition to the ruling Democrat party. But much more dangerously, these demonstrations are against democracy in general and, in particular, against American democracy. Technically, they are fighting against democracy in Israel and siding with the murderers and rapists of Hamas.
But he who fights against democracy in another country does not like democracy in his own country, either. Huge demonstrations create and legitimize anarchy: the establishment negotiates with anarchists to regularize anarchy. Anarchy in the U.S. comes from two sources — from crowds of illegal immigrants and from crowds of protesting opponents of democracy. Chaos is worse than democracy because democracy has boundaries and laws, chaos has none.
Democracy is not always the power of democrats. In one speech, Joseph Stalin created a characteristically sly joke about democracy: “I thought democracy was the power of the people, but Comrade Roosevelt lucidly explained to me that democracy is the power of the American people!” Democrats are not those who think democracy is their power. Usually the opposite is true: anyone who monopolizes their right to power by calling it democracy is most likely an anti-democrat.
One can learn about the future in the United States by observing the results of the flood of Islamic immigrants into Europe that began as a result of the Arab Spring in 2010.
The huge flow of immigrants into Europe is creating social chaos. The leaders of European countries, thinking they were in control, created chaos that turned against the indigenous population of their countries. They proceeded from the theory of multiculturalism, but a few months after mass immigration began, they admitted the failure of their policy. They had created turbulent flows of populations alien to Europe.
In the summer of 2010, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has been more active than any other European leader in promoting the resettlement of Arab refugees in Europe, summarized the German government’s failure to integrate them: “Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany, in which people of different cultures live in full harmony, have finally and irrevocably failed. The integration of foreigners is one of the main political tasks of the near future. Migrants should not only be supported, but also demanded, which has been given too little attention in recent times.”
In 2011, French President Nicolas Sarkozy summarized his country’s experience with multiculturalism this way: “Yes, it is very clear that it was a failure. We have been too concerned with the identity of the person who comes to the country and have not paid enough attention to the identity of the country that receives the newcomer.”
Before the flood of immigrants into Europe, many Europeans thought the answer to Europe’s social problems was multiculturalism, that is, the idea of a society that fully accepts foreigners who practice Islam, while preserving their religious and mental characteristics, without requiring them to integrate. But it turned out that multiculturalism facilitates not the integration of immigrants, but their consolidation, their isolation and promotes the creation of a state within a state. Then the European country becomes two states for two peoples, a state of natives and a state of immigrants who do not dissolve in the European democracy.
Society’s tolerance and respect for immigrants who are intolerant and disrespectful of that society prepares the change of power. The arrival of huge numbers of immigrants turns the country into a turbulent system that can easily, by a small push, move into a state of crisis with unpredictable results. The destabilization of society can be more dangerous for it than deviations from the democratic regime. If a ship is rocked violently, it may go off course and slightly change its direction, but it is much more dangerous that this rocking may cause it to sink.
French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut writes in his book Unhappy Identity that French identity is disappearing amid the active multiplication of Muslims, which is a “danger to the republic.” He links his fears to the formation of a multicultural and post-national France.
British journalist Simon Kuper reported in the Financial Times on his French observations: “Having moved to France in 2002, I witnessed first-hand the cultural revolution taking place in the country. Catholicism is virtually extinct (only 6% of French people now attend mass regularly). […] The non-white population continues to grow.” French political scientist Jérôme Fourquet, in his book The French Archipelago: the Birth of a Multiple and Divided Nation (2019), describes the cultural collapse of French society as a “post-Christian era,” as the French parting ways with Catholicism, as a “self-de-Christianization.” A recent study shows that there are as many Muslims in France as Catholics. In The French Archipelago, Fourquet presents a picture of a fractured, fragmented French society, from a single and indivisible nation to a true multicultural “archipelago.”
In 2020, the concept of “Islamist separatism” entered the French political lexicon, which means the non-recognition of the fundamental principles of the French Republic by a part of the French population and the creation of a “parallel society”. Muslims in France make up 9% of the population. This percentage is enough to create a “parallel counter-society” and a state within a state.
In the U.S., Muslims make up about 1% of the population. How long will it take the U.S. to reach the level of the French crisis if political correctness, multi-culti (etymology from the German Multikulti) dialogue from a position of tolerance and respect with intolerant populations are the constant governing companions of the current U.S. administration?
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/05/multiculti_chaos.html