We Must Invent A New World
Matthieu Pigasse is a glib talker. His fine sounding generalities mask some concrete specifics. ‘We’ will quote him further:
The crisis and reactions to the crisis demonstrate this as a fallacy [that governments should have no power] that there exist good policies and bad ones, that there exist good and bad regulations.
We must act in these areas:
1. Production, in other words growth. We must tell ourselves that without growth, there can be no progress and no reduction of inequality.
2. Solidarity, which is a method as much as a necessity. There is no progress if it does not profit all and if it is not accepted by all. Solidarity in Europe is not only a part of our glorious past, it is our key to our tomorrow.
3. Public action, for the genius of Europe is first of all that of a collective project and a common destiny.
Sounds lovely doesn’t it? In the abstract but what does it mean in the specifics.
Matt says that there is a crisis but he doesn’t say what that crisis is or who caused it and for what purpose, so we are left to interpret his words according to our understanding which may not accord with his belief that his beliefs must be accepted by all. Why must they? And he says Solidarity is a method. Really? Solidarity as I interpret it means a solid block, everyone moving in the same direction to the same drummer. When was that true of Europe as he states? What tradition can he demonstrate? And if there is a diversity of opinion how is that single opinion he advocates to be enforced and by whom? As Matt is a Communist one can only assume by Commissars appointed by some Lenin or Stalin, perhaps Matt himself.
But let us return to the crisis. This crisis as most of us understand it is the influx into Europe and America of conflicting ideologies and belief systems that cannot be reconciled with ours. The Moslems, for instance, if we are to have solidarity, believe it can only be under their ignorant system of Sharia law. At the same time the Jews say, nyet, nyet, it must be Talmudic law. Those of us who prefer Aryan customs, what are we to do, maintain exclusivity and let the Jews and Moslems exterminate one another? The remainder exterminating the other thus achieving solidarity?
These are real problems and not the beautiful theoretical model of Matt’s dreams. And then good policies and bad ones, good and bad regulations. Matt as a good Communist agrees with the flooding or Aryan lands with conflicting ideologies, religions and races. French text books under his guidance now denigrate French and European history in favor of inconsequential matters from Africa. Napoleon is given a few pages while the state with absolutely no history, Monomotapa located in the old Rhodesia is given many, many pages. Monomotapa is even represented as an African state which it was not. It was a Malagasy state exterminated by the Africans. What is being taught is not only inconsequential but untrue, a lie. He and his, actually unrepresentative minority, think this is a good policy while the majority vehemently disagree. The majority is democratically to be ignored.
Now he says that production is synonymous with growth and growth equals equality and progress. Then, we can’t have progress/production without growth. This is his point of view but there are others. But, he says, other opinions destroy solidarity and cannot be tolerated. So, where is growth to come from? There are five million Aryans in South Africa under the threat of genocide but Matt doesn’t want growth of that kind. No, he wants the genocidists who are killing Aryans. Does he not think Africans will kill Aryans in Europe as well as in South Africa? I’m betting he does and wants it to happen.
So Europe is being flooded with Black Africans which in turn creates a situation of inequality. But, Matts says, inequality is a bad policy, yet so long as there are Aryans and Negroes there will be inequality. How to eliminate that inequality. Eh, voila! He and Nick Sarkozy will pass a law that Aryan women must bear children to African fathers only. That was easy, wasn’t it?
Matt and Nicky are slippery customers with a very slippery vocabulary. They are not to be trusted. Shun them.