Friday, February 05, 2010

Watch Multiculturalism Deconstruct Itself

Columnist Mark Steyn has said of multiculturalism:

It's easy to be sensitive, tolerant and multicultural - it's the default mode of the age- yet, when you persist in being sensitive to the insensitive, tolerant of the intolerant, and impeccably multicultural about the avowedly unicultural, don't be surprised if they take it for weakness.*

I happen to believe that Osama bin Laden uttered one of the great truths of the age when he said:
"when the people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally gravitate toward the strong horse."

The thing is, we thought we were the strong horse. After all, we have all the nukes, tanks and aircraft carriers and they have all the camels, sand and carpets. Not so. The battle of ideology rages between Islam and the West, and it's not so clear that we're on top.

Liberal democracy and the free market is the way to go. It is the fairest, most healthy, wealth-creating ideology on the planet and people have died in their millions to protect it. It is a fragile system, however, as Thomas Jefferson knew well when he said,
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Multiculturalism, along with "diversity", is one of those words that a lot of people use without giving the impression they have thought about what it means. We assume it's a good thing. It sounds good. It sounds like an experience of the rich tapestry of humanity, where lots of cultures come together and maybe live in peace and harmony, or something.

We've all learn to give respect to those who are different, and acknowledge the validity of other cultures, even the ones we really don't like. But pretending to like them is part and parcel of seeking to bring about world peace; so, although we have nothing in common, there is some part of our humanity that is shared, and this is the basis of a better world.

And that is completely not what multiculturalism is.

Multiculturalism is the height of relativism. It says that all forms of cultural expression are equally valid, and that once a set of behaviours is coherent enough to be referred to as a culture, then those behaviours have to be respected as a part of that culture. Which is fine, but that's only the beginning of it.

Respecting other cultures is a good and noble activity, and the most multicultural period in human history possibly existed, say, between 1870 and 1930. Inter-cultural contact was at its highest point, and people all over the world were fascinated with goods and people who came from afar. Their differences were remarked upon by anthropologists, archaeologists and artists across Europe and America. Even architecture incorporated elements from far and wide in this period. Queen Victoria learned to speak Hindi and Punjabi.

Modern Multiculturalism, in contrast, means having all these things in the same place, irrespective of whether they are in any way compatible with each other. London, Paris and Amsterdam are praised for being 'multicultural' - although Sarajevo, Johannesburg and Jerusalem aren't.

Multiculturalism, too, is an afterthought. Nobody proposed it, seconded it, or voted for it. Citizens were not asked whether they wanted it or believed in it but were told, well, it's here now so you might as well try to like it. We were rescued from the humdrum of our own cultures by pizza, curry, tapas and sushi, but really, far-reaching social change cannot be justified on the grounds of interesting cuisine. In fact, to paraphrase Christopher Caldwell, after 30 years of such social change, people are still talking about restaurants.**

Let me make this very clear, Multiculturalism has very little to do with immigration, or immigrants. In fact, in many ways it is the opposite of the immigration that built countries like Australia and the United States. In contrast to the melting-pot model of immigration, Multiculturalism not only promotes immigration, but does so for the supposed good of the immigrants, rather than the citizens, and at the same time - this is a crucial point -teaches them
that they should keep their own cultures as much as possible, because those cultures are equally 'valid'.

This comes as a shock now to the many Iranians, for example, who arrived in countries like Norway and Canada in 1979 and after, hoping to escape Fundamentalist Islam for a Western liberal democracy where they can be free to integrate into a new society with all the benefits that confers. To be told that what they were escaping was a form of culture equally valid to that found in their new country must come as a surprise to those who have come to love Western freedom.

Zero pressure to integrate into Western society has had at least three serious, negative effects:

First off, it had led to ghettoisation of many of Europe's cities such as Paris and Malmo, where North African enclaves exist surrounded by French and Swedish suburbs, with the resulting explosions in crime and intimidation, as gangs fill the vacuum of law and order left by the retreating State.

Secondly, it has bred contempt for Western culture within these fortresses of isolation, a Western culture that has in no way sought to assert any kind of influence over people who might otherwise quite like to live like Europeans, but rather has permitted all the worst kinds of injustice to seep into those enclaves, surrounded by the protective shroud of cultural tolerance. So now, even the children of secularised immigrants have become radicalised; many European-born Muslims are wearing Islamic garb that their mothers (and grandmothers) never wore.

Thirdly, Westerners have come to believe the propaganda that European culture is worth nothing in the face of such "colour" and "diversity". After all, we are the opposite of colour and diversity. The result is that multiculturalism has become otherculturalism (heteroculturism?), where all other cultures are of superior, not 'equal' value. Because we have been taught that 'respect' means to allow people their own native forms of cultural expression, any attempt to introduce them to Western values becomes an imposition

Multiculturalism is a fraud. Because it characterises people according to their 'differences', it cannot allow those differences to evaporate. Witness the treatment of Westernised immigrants like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Nonie Darwish, persecuted for speaking out against Islam in their new countries of residence. Whereas bookstore connoisseurs devour any literature emerging from China and Iran these days, anyone escaping repressive regimes to become a Westerners is treated with contempt.

This is largely because Westerners cannot understand why anyone would want to become Western. After all, do they not have a "rich" culture of their own? So, when an immigrant is invited to join the multicultural tapestry, the pressure is on them to stay that way. When they express love of Western freedom, or - Allah forbid - assimilate to the European way of life, they have ceased to become interesting and exotic. They now represent a failure of multiculturalism, and that is just not allowed.

Anyone who wonders why foreigners who arrived in Britain in the 1950s or Scandinavia in the 1970s assimilated, while their compatriates arriving in the last ten years have not, can wonder no longer. "Multiculturalism" is the answer to the question of why 1970s Mohammed is a retired engineer and his children are doctors, while 2000s Mohammed is in jail for armed robbery and dropping his wife out a 5th floor window.

Multiculturalism only provides equality in one sense, in that is it is equally oppressive for all cultures, equally. In the marketplace of ideas, where good ones come out on top and bad ones fall away, insulating ideas from competition under the protection of cultural relativism just preserves the lifespan of terrible ideas. Like flying aeroplanes into buildings and cutting off bits of your daughters.

But I think the most important and insidious crime of Multiculturalism is that it is a doctrine than denies the fundamental freedom of the individual, and demotes the individual to the status of a group-member. In this respect it reveals itself as an entirely Marxist edifice whose goal is the construction and maintenance of group identity at the expense of the individual.

If we compare European (and Canadian) models of immigration with that of the United States (and maybe Australia), we can further expose this myth. The USA greets immigrants with a cold indifference, says Christopher Caldwell, that neither forces integration nor glorifies "diversity" to prevent it. As a result, immigrants have a choice, to accept the isolation that comes from ghettoisation, or to embrace the American dream in all its splendour (sorry, splendor).

To paraphrase Jeremy Clarkson: if Mohammed wants to speak Arabic, wear a dress and live in Birmingham, that's his right. To this I would add, he also has the right to live in poverty and isolation, as may be the consequence of his choices in a modern, secular society. He has no right to demand a job, live on welfare or otherwise expect British society to fund those choices. That is the dilemma of multiculturism, and why ultimately it can be deconstructed; It becomes necessary to force all of society to recognise difference purely so that it can subsidise it, and in doing so not only insulates people from the consequences of following bad ideas, but actually subsidises them.

*Mark Steyn, America Alone
Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe.

9 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Multiculturalism is a lie!!!

Take the world for instance. The world 50 years ago was a truly multi-cultural society. There was a place for every race and ethnic group to practice their own culture in their own geographical area.

This is TRUE multiculturalism.
What we've always had was true multiculturalism. The world has always been multicultural. Each group had a place to freely practice their own culture.

BUT then everything changed and the leaders said that every unicultural ethnic group needs to incorporate other ethnic group into their society.

This is when they started with their policies of integration through immigration. So what you affective ended up with, is a mix match of different cultures all co-inhabiting the same geographical areas.

That is what was said, but it was only the WHITE WESTERN SOCIETIES that were required to assimilate with other societies. If you keep in mind that the Marxist goal is the destruction of the West, this all makes sense.

So we previously had a true multicultural society where every culture had a place to freely practice their own culture. This arrangement was what the Marxists wanted to destroy, through immigration and integration. This policy of immigration led to the creation of LESSER multicultural societies, than what you previously had. This was because these mixed societies are now prohibited from practising their cultures to their fullest abilities, that their cultures require of them, because certain aspects of their culture may be offensive to other cultures.

This is what we are finding today, that certain aspects of the Western culture is offensive to the Islamic culture and vica versa. This means that cultures have to adapt to the other cultures.

This people, isn't multiculturalism, but the beginnings of uniculturalism.

Thus change is required to prevent conflict. Normally the most change will be carried out by the least aggressive group.
This required change is proof that multiculturalism is a myth, a lie.

Let me re-cap
1) Historically we have always had multiculturalism, when each ethnic group had a place on this planet to practice his own culture.
2) What we are getting now under the pretence of multiculturalism is something else entirely.....

) We know that the so-called pretend multiculturalism that is being forced onto the West by the non representative Western leaders is only a step in the road to a still hidden goal.

Zarkovsky, the Marxist French president, made the true goals of the multicultural movement clear, when he advised the French people to miscegenate to prevent conflict.

Racial mixing is not multicultural, it is unicultural.

The Marxist goal is the destruction of the Western culture and there is no better way to do this, than to force another culture onto them through deception and lies and when the unpreventable conflict arises between the different cultures, to tell them that they must genetically assimilate.

You are guaranteed to destroy these cultures and you will be left with a homogeneous unicultural group that you can shape to your desire.

This is their goal.

Multiculturalism is a myth.

Anonymous said...

Dear me, another anti Islamic post. That´s the fifth in two days.
The hate rhetoric seems to be hotting up. I even received an email today with a, "pass it on", message from an Emanuel Tanay, denouncing Islam in the most incredibly strong language. Unfortunately, most of it was just blatant hate propaganda.
It seems Tanay is a holocaust survivor. I wonder why he would promote hate towards another religious group when he has first hand experience of what it´s like? Seems very strange indeed.

FishEagle said...

Well Anon 1.53, Islam is crap. But just exactly where does anyone encourage violence towards Muslims? Stop building straw man arguments and stirring trouble.

Anonymous said...

@Fish eagle. Stirring trouble? WTF are you talking about? And what gives you the right to judge Islam?
I made an observation. I thought this was an open forum where we could put our points of view forward, or did I get that wrong? Just because my opinion doesn´t align with yours, hardly gives you the right to say I´m causing trouble. If you see any untruths or blatant lies in my post, by all means have a go at me. Otherwise, I would ask you to please exercise a bit more tolerance, not only for the opinions of others, but also for their religous beliefs.

Snowy Smith said...

NO Multiculturalism in ISRAEL WHY?
NO female sterilisation in ISRAEL WHY?
NO family Planning PROPAGANDA in ISRAEL WHY?

Viking said...

~Snowy, I don't entirely get your point, but the reason Israel has no 'multiculturalism' is because they have 'no-bullshit' policies towards most things.
They do have minorities but they're not afraid to put them in their place.

Anon, "promoting hate", whether you realise it or not, is MultiCultSpeak for 'expressing critical opinions' so in that regard, we'll carry on and let others do the same.

No hate for any person is expressed in the article, nor is any violence advocated (except maybe bombing Iran). Resistance to an intolerant, illiberal and vicious ideology is, however, advocated and encouraged.

The hate radiates from the Islamic fundamentalists and homicide -bombers, who can look a child in the eye and still self-detonate next to him.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 2:45. You are correct, we are intolerant; but we will let you have your say, as long as you are adding to the debate. So is there anything you want to say, instead of whine?

This blog was started with the sole purpose of criticising geo-political events, that will negatively impact first world standards. That is bound to offend people.

Clearly you are offended, so don't come here then.

Oh, and by the way, we have every right to judge, pass opinion and criticise. It's called Freedom of Speech. You should learn about it sometime.

FishEagle said...

Anon 2.45. I can judge whatever the fuck I want. Question is, do you want to silence my judgement or will you be prepared to walk away in the name of freedom of speech. Walking away could be in the form of engaging in a discussion.

No one judged the Jewish religion before the Holocaust in the way that Islam is being judged at the moment by the First World. Instead the Jews were just slaughtered by the Germans out of envy. I would hardly say anybody with the freedom of a European culture envies the Muslims. You are stirring trouble because you have implied that the two situations were the same. You will easily manipulate Muslims to act on their fears, against non-Muslims, if you can get them to believe the situations were the same.

We will not start exterminating the Muslims just because we critisize their religion. I don't know what planet you're from, but in my culture we don't just simply exterminate people.

Brent said...

Check this out guys.

Quite and eye opener. Im Staying in the UK at the moment and this doesnt sound far off. Eventually europe will be overun by muslims, just a matter of time!

In the UK there are Muslim protesters who protest against the war in Iraq at a memorials for dead british soldiers.The thing that gets me the most is if you decide to immigrate to a country you should live by its rules and if you are so displeased why not go back to your country and fight against the west. They are nothing more than cowards!

Im not going to go to Iraq and tell them to give into the west. Arogant Hypocrite assholes!!!