Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.2.3-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as usual each spring, between the flowering of the plum and cherry trees, we are treated to a fashion show of the latest moral and intellectual campaigns in the fight against Satan, his vanities and his works or, to use the accepted expression, against xenophobia, racism and antisemitism.
As an academic, a teacher of the languages and civilisations of the Far East prior to my entry into politics and the former dean of a faculty where twenty-eight foreign languages and civilisations were taught, I do not regard myself as a xenophobe. Yet I must say that all this supposedly antiracist talk has some common features, the first of which is intellectual invalidity and the second the destruction of liberty.
This talk is intellectually invalid because the terms used are not even defined. What are racism, xenophobia, nationalism and extremism? What do these concepts cover? What are their philosophical origins? What doctrines do they involve? Do those accused of these acts deserve this opprobrium? No one knows or wants to know because, if these terms were defined, this would weaken their real purpose which is to paralyse hearts and minds by constant repetition of the same generalisations and by the threat of demonising those not stepping into line.
The aim is really to fraudulently make patriotic sentiment seem to be expansionist nationalism, the legitimate refusal of migration policy to be xenophobia and the desire of nations to preserve their identity to be racism. This is completely absurd. Racism is the desire to achieve the domination of one race over another. Who is racist in Europe nowadays? Xenophobia is the rejection of a foreign presence. You can morally condemn this but, politically speaking, you should consider that, in its literal meaning, xenophobia is the source of all the national liberation movements which we have praised at other times.
As for antisemitism which is apparently re-emerging in Europe, why not ask the real questions? The proposition made in a book by the left-wing philosopher, JeanPaul Sartre, according to which the Jew is basically an artificial creation of the antisemite is clearly false, like the rest of this philosopher’s thinking. However, could the opposite proposition not be true, namely that certain Jewish circles need antisemitism in order to exist, to strengthen their identity and even to assert their moral, political and even financial authority?
This is exactly what is stated by certain intellectually honest and courageous Jews who go so far as to deplore the perverse reminders of the only persecution of the Jews during the Second World War, known globally under the vague and religious term of ‘Shoah’. These daily, obsessive, exclusive and sometimes frenzied reminders of this persecution are for political and financial purposes which no longer have any connection with the worship of the dead and their remembrance.
Yet the problem with this supposed antiracism is not its search for truth or even its support for migrants … Mr Schulz, my family never accepted any German capo. This will not start with you! … It is rather a question of nipping in the bud any vague desires which nations might have to oppose the destruction of their identity. The religion of antiracism has its dogmas, its priests, its inquisitors and its witch-hunts. History will roundly condemn the protagonists of this shameful ideology which we are proud to fight at any time."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples