By Alexander Maistrovoy
The nations of the former Soviet Union experienced the grim consequences of social experiments on their own skin. Western Europe is next.
Marxist dogma suggests that the “national question” should be resolved by
◾“erasing national differences” and the affirmation of internationalism and
◾the artificial implantation of language and culture of the carrier of the “progressive ideology”.
According to Lenin, “international culture of the global labor movement” should be solely based on the great historic culture of Russia. These principles were consistently implemented by the Soviet Communist Party, especially in the first decades of Soviet power.
On the one hand, there was according to the Marxist ideology, suppressed “nationalist philistines”, as Lenin called them. On the other, there was the expansion of Russian nation as a “progressive nation”.
Ukraine became the first victim of this policy and the current strife in this country has its roots in communist ideology. In the 1920s Lenin urged the acceleration of the process of assimilating Ukrainians by “migrating tens and hundreds of thousands Russian farmers and workers to Ukrainian mines and cities”.
According to Stalin “Urban culture is superior because it is Russian; as for the rural (Ukrainian) culture, only the devil understands their language”.
These weren’t just empty statements. The “Rural culture” underwent total destruction, part of which was the artificially-crafted “Holodomor” (Hunger-extermination). At the same time, “Urban Culture” was imposed by resettling millions of Russians in Ukraine.
“Russification” became an instrument of Marxist dogma. Although the bloody deportations of people and settlement of Russians on the “liberated territories” were dictated by imperial considerations and the personal pathology of Stalin, they fit perfectly into the Bolshevik concept of the “national question”.
The same policy was implemented in the Baltic States. Hundreds of thousands of Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians were deported to Siberia and the Kazakh steppe. The deported “nationalist philistines” were replaced by representatives of the “worldwide labor movement,” i.e., ethnic Russians.
In some cases the domination of the “worldwide labor movement” was achieved by territorial manipulation. For example, Ukrainian Transnistria was forcibly attached to Moldova. Transnistria was turned into an industrial center of Moldova and was actively populated by Russians.
When the giant and unsustainable monster “Soviet Union” had collapsed, people who became victims of bloodcurdling experiments gained independence, and with it the “national question” inherited from the “Red Empire”.
It turned into a time bomb. Ukraine has split into two parts: the Western Ukraine — cast off from Poland with Lvov as its capital, and russified Eastern — with industrial facilities. Yanukovych represents Eastern Ukraine, and the current confrontation is not only between the supporters and opponents of “Europeanization”, but also between the “Russian proletariat” and West Ukrainian “peasantry”.
As soon as Transnistria has declared itself an independent republic with Tiraspol as its capital, Moldova, that has became independent as well, immediately plunged into civil war. Although the battles have continued during several months in 1992, they claimed lives of more than a thousand people. The bleeding wound of the conflict is still open.
The slavic population (Russian, Ukrainians, and Belarusians) exceeds 30 percent as a result of forced Russification of Latvia; prior to the forcible annexation to the USSR it was less than 10 percent. Ethnic Russians who populate the southeastern area of the country, which is adjacent to Russia, are quite capable, like the residents of Transnistria, of demanding independence, either by their own initiative or at the Kremlin’s behest.
The situation is similar in neighboring Estonia, where Russians are quarter of the population and where the border with Russia is densely populated by Russian natives.
All European countries of the former Soviet Union are in a state of constant friction between the national majority and the Russian minority, which is perceived as an agent influenced by Kremlin.
The solution of the “national question” in the West was carried out in a more sophisticated fashion. Wrapped in multiculturalism, it was tainted with poison deadlier than Bolshevism.
On the one hand, Western consciousness was suppressed by “international” dogma. Survival instinct was atrophied; the average Frenchman, Italian, German, or Englishman became a hostage of powerful self-censorship, even stronger than in the totalitarian Soviet regime where people were fearful of the authorities. In Western Europe they are afraid of themselves and their innate feelings. External censorship, though, also existed: zealous and ubiquitous EU bureaucrats resembled the Communist Party apparatchiks.
On the other, Third World natives — the “proletariat” of XXI century – became the embodiment of the “progress” against “nationalist philistine prejudices”. While inhabiting European cities and creating ghettos, they’ve destroyed the natural structure of society. Initial demand for manpower was put at the service of ideology. As a result, the deformation occurred from the top (EU bureaucracy) and from the bottom — an alien and often hostile population.
There is no doubt that the “Pink Empire” will collapse just like the “Red” one did. The question is how can Europeans cope with the multicultural heritage?
Sensitive Urban Zones – bounty of closed and isolated communities — already exist in European cities. Like in Lebanon, these are in fact “states within a state” which have their own laws, implicit government, “guards” and courts. Unlike in Lebanon where the ethnic-religious mosaic evolved naturally and took centuries, in Western Europe the process was fast, chaotic and random.
From London to Geneva and from Oslo to Vienna we see improvised criminal organizations, mini-”Islamic Republics” like “Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets” (Kafkaesque combination), tribal unions, and mafias, such as Albanian or Caucasian ones. The state, like in Lebanon, with its courts and police, is helpless in front of these extraterritorial entities that emerge like mushrooms after the rain. They can create a coalition or collide with each other. It is already a reality.
On the Edgeware Roa, in London, Salafis led by Anjem Choudary attack the Shiite Iranians. Gangs of teenagers from Africa and the Caribbean in London’s Handsworth terrorize neighboring districts. In French Mulhouse (Haut-Rhine) Chechen criminal clans start a war with Arabs. In French cities, such as Nimes and Sarcelles, immigrants from the Maghreb dominate local markets, hindering the trade of pork, alcohol and bathing suits; in Marseilles in September 2012 they vandalized a gypsy camp. Turkish neighborhoods dispute with Kurdish neighborhoods in Germany; the Muslim ghetto in Copenhagen imposes its rules on African neighbors. In all cases the authorities refrain from intervening and fear resorting to force. And, in all the cases these archaic, patriarchal communities are expanding their living space at the expense of indigenous people and the state.
Repressions, deportations and cruel punitive actions would be required in order to establish the rule of law – the European consciousness is absolutely unprepared for such brutality. As a result the real power will be in the hands of those who are better organized, armed and have a powerful patron — like “Hizbullah” in Lebanon.
Russians relocated to Ukraine and Moldova were more or less people of somewhat similar culture to the local population (in many cases they belonged the same Orthodox faith as in Moldova). It did not eliminate conflicts, but reduced their intensity and hatred. Intruders from outskirts of Russia with alcohol addictions and bad habits annoyed prim and composed Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, but the gap was not as sizable as between the Western civilization and closed patriarchal communities with clan vendettas, institutionalized pedophilia, beating women, girls’ circumcision, polygamy, ritual cults, legitimized slavery, caste system etc.
Russian youth in the Ukraine and the Baltic States are not sacrificial. They have no intention to die for Mother Russia. They want to enjoy life and dream about citizenship in Switzerland, the USA or Canada. Young Pakistanis, Afghans, Sudanese, Somalis, Moroccans, Caribbean don’t have even a smidgen of sympathy for European history and culture. Deep contempt for Europe and fidelity to the laws of blood and honor are their driving forces.
Like the situation in Lebanon, it will be a war of all against all, but, unlike in the Lebanese case of Druze or Christians, an average European is not motivated by a cohesive clan and the hunger for eternal war.
“There is nothing more miserable [than the] moralization of the great social catastrophe!” – wrote Trotsky. His followers in the West certainly agree with him. The revolutionary ideal comes first. No one cares what will happen to the “natural material” of revolution which are only ordinary people (white, black, colored, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, man and woman).http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/01/31/the-national-question-europe-reaps-the-bitter-fruit-of-soviet-policies/