An uncomfortable veil of silence has been lowered on the surprising words spoken recently by Hilary Clinton. Perhaps the lady spoke more than was convenient.
"The cultural codes deeply rooted religious beliefs and phobias structural need to be changed. Governments must use their tools and coercive resources to redefine the traditional religious dogma. "
These words Hilary Clinton has spoken publicly and without subterfuge, during a conference pro-abortion and left more than one person with an open mouth.
"Reforming coercively religions"? Where then he would remain religious freedom? "Changing cultural identity"? Where then it is simply the freedom to exist? Similar intentions, put into the mouth of none other than the main Democratic candidate for president of the United States, would have to open a strong debate.
Not so. As a very significant fact, the mainstream media in the West have preferred to silence the revelations. Without revealing that the media did not want to emphasize these statements.
Which give meaning to the statements of Hillary Clinton?
Step One: that the "cultural codes deeply rooted", these are to be understood as the traditional cultural identities, which are considered in reality nests of "phobias structural", ie eliminate prejudices that must be right.
Step two: that within these "phobias structural" are the "traditional religious dogma."
Step three: that the government, and the public authorities are entitled to use their coercive force against religious dogma and cultural identities.
When you look at what this coercive force, this is, in a nutshell, the "legal monopoly of violence", then one has to start worrying. When you also notes that for the "phobia" or "dogmas" are considered those that are traditional principles of Western civilization, namely, natural philosophy, (for example the right to life), then the concern ascends up to be transformed in alarm. What expressed succinctly Hilary Clinton is a totalitarian political project of social engineering and cultural. Neither more nor less.
This project is already underway.
Surprising? Actually not much. These platitudes are not new: they have already outstanding modernist ideology since the French Revolution. On the other hand these preserve a perfect harmony with what we have seen grow in the West over the past twenty-five years since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989: programs of social engineering dell'ONU- frequently endorsed by the United States-, policies abortion and omosessualiste adopted by almost all European countries and the dismantling of ethnic identities in the western. Hilary Clinton is in fact limited to manifest what was already latent.
These words of Hilary Clinton have been interpreted in a strictly North American: they are an engineering project social- spiritual-best you can say in a country that boasts of being born on the basis of religious freedom. Certainly in the North American context, such ideas do not stop being a correction of identity of the origin of the country, so that it might seem incomprehensible to the amazement of many. Yet Clinton's purposes are part of the usual themes of the left USA since 1968. To say so. what we have seen so far has been its "put on track", its transformation into a political program without camouflage.
Similarly, many observers have seen in the statements of Clinton a kind of declaration of war against Christianity. This is a perspective correct but incomplete: the war does not concern only the traditional religions but also extends, as the same lady Clinton, the "cultural codes deeply rooted".
This means that all the cultural and historical identity, which it was its scope and its nature, must be reformed coercively from political power.It is not just religion that is in danger: the threat extends to any stretch of identity that does not coincide with the program of the "new era" marked by globalization and its hegemonic power, which is the United States of America.
And we Europeans do we do? In general it follows the current. Well, it seems certain that the path has some unexpected complications and these have not been slow to appear. It is frankly difficult to maintain social cohesion in a context of dismantling the "cultural codes deeply rooted".
In this regard the French experience is most interesting: the 80s, France has experienced a process of building a new Identity: based on one called "republican identity", which basically consisted of the destruction of the nation and classical references replacing them with new dogmas. "He said De La France- Gaulle- is a European country of the white race and the Christian religion." He started to stop being such a little after the death of the general. Europeanism has been converted into a form of cosmopolitanism that saw France as the lead in a world without borders, in the world in which Europe itself is nothing more than a privileged region in a global context.
Similarly, any factor of ethnic - racial, cultural, etc.-has begun to be a taboo for the benefit of a company newly minted built on turnout massive foreign population. As for religion, this was going to be systematically postponed in the wake of a radical secularism that has not waned even when Sarkozy, in St. John Lateran, discovered before the Pope Benedict XVI values of "positive secularism".
The result was a disjointed country politically, as economic and social.The official discourse continues to move towards the same objective, the social reality already walking down a different path.
The rapid growth of the "National Front" is no accident. Politicians try to react by adapting to the terrain. The last was the Prime Minister Valls, who last year had opened institutionally the "Ramadan", while now is anxious to claim the character unmistakably Christian France. Maybe he did it too late.
Whatever the reason, the one who exposed the Democratic candidate for president of the United States is much more than a statement of intent: it is the story of the covert program of the new world order, that to impose itself without great resistance requires, precisely, to demolish cultural roots and traditional religions. It was inevitable that someone would eventually ended by invoking the power of the State to put running this operation coercively. Hilary Clinton did it.
The globalist European left (and not only that), most likely came into the wagon. So we will see, to our left, support the globalist policy in the name of progress. The turns are taking place in History.
Source: The Gaceta.es
Translation: Luciano Lago source: controinformazione.info