Historian and analyst of the Institute of václav Klaus, aleš Valenta says that cultural Marxism is intertwined with the international neoliberalismo, and an example of this is George Soros. The entire political spectrum permeates a kind of “coalition of normal people United in the name of common sense.”
Parlamentní listy: In his book “One year of conservative journalism,” you write about “the West” in quotes. True West, according to your definition, is a liberal democracy, civil and economic freedom and traditional family values. British conservative John Lofland, simply speaking, says that today Marxism reigns in the West, and Russia under Putin got rid of him. That is, the pole was replaced. Putin allegedly in their own way rekindles patriotism, traditional values, support the Orthodox Church, restore the economy and stimulate population growth and so on, whereas the modern “West” covered by neo-Marxism. Do you agree that today the poles have changed?
Aleš Valenta: If we talk about “the West”, it is my thesis. If we turn to Western universities or the media, neo-Marxism, which established itself in Western society in the 60 years, there are really dominates, especially in the media, in universities and institutions. Because of wrongly understood equality and tolerance in the West are increasingly suppressed freedom. Egalitarianism penetrates into the economy. Recently, Germany adopted a Federal law that in the state of companies whose shares are traded on the stock exchange must be at least 30% women leaders. In schools, institutions, media, neo-Marxism clearly has the upper hand. In this sense, in the West freedom has been increasingly repressed. The advantage is given to equality, wrongly understood tolerance, multiculturalism…
— The question is not whether it is “equality” when some are “more equal than“ others…
Is the “equality” that ends the oppression of men. Today in Germany, in some areas men need quotas because women there are given preference. Total equality kills freedom…
— Yes, and the equality is relative. Sometimes you have to choose: either “equality” for Muslims with their Islamic requirements, or “equality” for women. If we turn to the example of Sweden, where the Muslims violate the natural rights of women, physically attacked, but the demands of feminists apply only to the white population, and Muslims can behave towards women, according to the rules of Islam…
— All these insoluble contradictions faced by the left, including from Muslim migration…
— It’s about the fact that this equality in practice, in General, not…
— It exists as a slogan and tenet policy, which allows you to destroy freedom and legal order. If you create an artificial inequality,…
— You are destroying equality before the law…
Exactly. In Germany, equality before the law does not exist, because to stand for election and be appointed to senior positions women assist the quota. Some men have filed lawsuits in administrative courts, because in Germany the Directive that follows from the Federal law and the laws of the individual länder. According to this rule, if in the competition for some position in the state apparatus, both men and women with the same qualifications, then preference should always be given to the woman. Just because she is a woman. So no there is no equality, but rather the opposite. This leads to the absurd litigation, and in society is in some sort of pseudoevents, invented by the left.
Let’s go back to Russia?
— I would prefer to avoid such an unambiguous judgment. I also see some hope for the European Christian culture, although Russia is another. It is a country which — considering its culture, tradition, and history, you can’t expect the reign of Western-type democracy. Let’s not build such illusions. However, it is a country that the law banned the spread of gay culture among young people, which is extremely correct. Such goes against the trend that was established in Germany: there the young people literally subjected to sexual perversions. In the end, this leads to the disintegration of society and families. In Russia, family is more protected, and it is good.
— Maybe in Russia made themselves felt some natural instincts…
— In Russia they never suppressed as in the West. The sexual revolution in the 60-ies there was not. In General, the same can be said about Central and Eastern Europe. We also do not experienced a sexual revolution because, paradoxically, the Communist regime. Because of this one thing our generation is not subjected to this ultra-left re-education. This is our advantage compared to the “West”. Therefore, in terms of mentality and politics, the situation in Central and Eastern Europe is different from the “West”. If we are protected from the massive invasion of the Islamic element in cultural and civilizational terms we, definitely, will be more likely to survive than the “West”.
— In your book you write about how you can save democracy. In a review of your book Michal Semin said that freedom cannot exist without order, cannot exist without Christianity. I understood from this that, in your view, liberal democracy itself is fragile as it is strong and undeniable support. Then for you is the Foundation of freedom, in the words of Chesterton, a kind of “Orthodoxy” or “Orthodoxy” based on Christianity?
— You allude to one statement in my book that I borrowed from German law historian by the name of Bockenforde. 25 years ago, he said that liberalism is a system which cannot survive through its own resources, and which is not able to guarantee itself no moral rules to be observed by the population of the state, and without minimal social homogeneity. Due to the comprehensive tolerance and moral turpitude liberalism loses those moral rules which, according to Benford, gave Christianity. Liberal society was afraid of Christianity (to some extent justifiably, given past experience) and believed that they will be able to create the order with the rule of General tolerance to one another and de facto, to everything.
However, it now appears that this tolerance is not strong enough support. She is not able to maintain the integrity of the society. Such extremes, like radical feminism or “genderism”, possible only in a society which has proclaimed the complete tolerance and get rid of all moral norms. And if we talk about the homogeneity, it violates multiculturalism and mass immigration. Thus, Western companies are deprived of the standards and their uniformity, that is, to survive, they will not.
— You talked about “tolerance”. If there are threats, as is the case with the postulate of equality, the fact that this “tolerance” will be reborn in the so-called “repressive tolerance”, which they say neo-Marxists… it’s about the fact that everyone who does not agree with their understanding of tolerance will be punished. This neo-Marxist principle is well described by Ladislav Jakl saying: “Be tolerant or eat it!” In terms of political correctness of people in the best case, dismissed or stigmatized by the Nazis, and at worst put in jail… So not the end of this postulated tolerance complete intolerance…
— Yes, it is. It ends with intolerance of those who refuse to accept this type of tolerance. If we turn to the writings of prominent philosophers of the neo-Marxist, say, by Theodor Adorno, and there we’ll find it.
— In your book you write that economic globalisation along with multiculturalism is the ingredients from which the global elite have welded the universal eintopf, which are going to dissolve national, linguistic and religious diversity of our world. I’m going to ask a speculative question, if we have today a mixture of neo-Marxism and neo-liberalism…
Is the complementary processes…
— Do not give the answer to this question statements American paleoconservative Pat Buchanan or Donald trump, who speak about returning to “national capitalism” and protectionism for protection from transnational corporations. While they are extremely strong and without barriers penetrate national markets…
— I am of the same opinion. Cultural Marxism is mixed with international neo-liberalism, and an example of this is George Soros. Both direction — against nation-States and the natural ties between the national communities, because the huge multinational companies need free labor, which will not be tied to one’s favourite place. They need a labor force that will still be that today it is in Spain, and five years later moved to another location. This is the beginning of the end of the nation state. It is for this economic reason against transnational borders are international businessmen. Advocating against borders, neo-Marxists are guided by cultural and ideological considerations.
The German philosopher Habermas of the Frankfurt school argued that European society had “different”, someone else as something extremely positive and therefore opened to all of this the borders of their countries. Today, these principles are applied in practice to immigration in Europe. Habermas believed that we need to make sure that immigrants as quickly as possible received the same rights of indigenous Germans, as immigrants enrich the country. So the peoples will disappear, at least European, and people without nationality are the perfect labor force for multinational companies.
In politics there was always a division between left and right depending on the approach to the economy: more taxes, the free market and so on. Is there not today, probably, the separation of the adherents of globalization and supranationalism and supporters of patriotism and anti-globalism? Marine Le Pen, which is called the right against globalization and supports the welfare state. We have a nominally leftist Milos Zeman, who supported Donald trump’s and Norbert Hofer, and he opposes immigration. Donald trump, in turn, advocated protectionism. Orban is also not an economic liberal. Many members of the Communist party KSČM often more zealously defend national identity, sovereignty and are opposed to migration than the so-called right-wing of the party ТОР09 or the so-called right-Angela Merkel…
— Of course. I remember the specialized article of the political scientist Stanislav Balik from Brno, which was published in the Echo last year. In my opinion, this is a very valuable article. The author writes that the division into right and left anymore, and that formed a kind of Union of the conservative-liberal forces and “old left”. The “old left” has maintained its view on the economy and did not succumb to the modern neo-Marxist trends in regard to civilizational issues.
— However, part of the modern right has succumbed to this neo-Marxist tendencies…
Yes. But they are right, which we will call conservatives. Angela Merkel is considered a Christian Democrat, but de facto she is a representative of the Green party. That is what you said, it’s a kind of coalition of normal people United in the name of common sense. The opinion of these people have in common on migration part of the left with the forces that are close to us — to those who cooperate with the Institute of václav Klaus. This is a new situation, but it is in line with that in recent years has changed the concept and political trends.
