Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘multiculturalism’

The truth is out.  The British Labour party has intentionally permitted—indeed, encouraged—very high levels of immigration to ensure itself a permanent electoral majority and to undermine the “British” character of British society.  Melanie Phillips:

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage….

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Thomas Sowell notes that the Obama administration seems intent on “dismantling America.”  There are many forms of national cultural sabotage, which is not solely a British phenomenon.

Read Full Post »

Wretchard quotes Mark Steyn, speaking in Vancouver before he goes on trial:

What we’re up against is not primarily defined by what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are still essentially military campaigns and we’re good at those. … it might be truer to say that this is a Cold Civil War – by which I mean a war within the west. The real war is a domestic war: the key terrain is not the Sunni Triangle but every major city within the western world. …

Even if there were no battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, even if no one was flying planes into tall buildings in New York, even if no one were blowing up trains and buses and nightclubs in Madrid and London and Bali, even without all that, we would still be in danger of losing this thing – without a shot being fired.

Wretchard himself remarks:

But what “kinda guy” is modern Western multiculturalism, that proud creation of “progressive” thought? It is, in the last analysis, the principal ally of every fascist unicultural force there is. Steyn soon warms to the point that what is at issue isn’t what Islam is; because Islam will be what it will be. What is at issue in the hate speech proceedings is what the West wants to be.

In the comments, he continues:

Islam and Marxism are examples of “greedy ideas”; ideas whose main purpose is to reproduce themselves, in part by eliminating all competition until they literally rule the world.

In contrast, the notion of diversity as a good springs precisely from idea that even ideas which are “unfit to survive” deserve preservation on the grounds that they contribute something even if we do not know what that something is.

The phenomenon of a “multicultural society” coming to the rescue of a “unicultural tyranny” is the outcome of a greedy idea coming into an environment where it’s very greediness — its will to power — is protected.

I am not persuaded that the current multicultural leadership is truly committed to diversity. Rather, diversity is used as a cover under which a “greedy idea” can be advanced. The problem with totalitarian notions is that by their nature they are all or nothing affairs. As one Englishman put it, “they are either at your feet or at your throat”.

The key problem is how to face down greedy ideas like Marxism and Islam without becoming a species of totalitarianism ourselves. I am not convinced this is possible, at least in the militant stage. Totalitarian ideas must be beaten down until they are discredited. They are unsafe to leave in virulent condition.

Read Full Post »

Fjordman points out a paradox in multicultural orthodoxy: Indigenous peoples’ resistance to the arrival of people from other parts of the world, with other cultures, was noble in the past, but it’s racist today. The Sioux were justified in trying to defend their homeland—but the Danes and Serbs aren’t.

Read Full Post »

Consider this juxtaposition. Fjordmann reports:

The EU’s Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini states that Europe must relax its immigration controls and open the door to an extra 20 million “Africans and Asians” during the next two decades. Most of these “Africans and Asians” come from the predominantly Muslim countries of North Africa and the Greater Middle East.

Meanwhile, in Germany (HT: JihadWatch):

A crowd of 16,000 expatriate Turks cheered Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a vast indoor auditorium in Germany on Sunday as he told them to resist assimilation into the West.

The political rally by Germany’s biggest ethnic minority upset German politicians, who objected to a major public event on German soil being advertised on posters in Turkish only.

Erdogan indirectly addressed those concerns, saying it was right for Turkish immigrants to learn German and other languages so they could integrate, but wrong to abandon their Turkish heritage and assimilate.

“Assimilation is a crime against humanity,” he told the crowd.

Read Full Post »

Politiken has published a remarkable assault on multiculturalism in its European form.

Read Full Post »

Mark Steyn describes the contradictions involved in a multicultural Amsterdam.

How many advocates of multiculturalism have appreciated that it is inconsistent with civil liberties? John Stuart Mill defends the harm principle, which says that people ought to be allowed to live as they see fit so long as they don’t violate the rights of others. That superficially seems to support multiculturalism, but in fact it contradicts it, for most cultures don’t accept the harm principle. Must we tolerate intolerance? If the answer is yes, how long is tolerance likely to survive?

Read Full Post »