Antimulticulture
2005-12-20 10:24:36 UTC
The Tragedy of Multiculturalism
http://jimball.com.au/Multi_C.htm
Augusto Zimmermann
July 2004
Multiculturalism, an idea that started out in the sixties and early
seventies, initially had the reasonable goal of including minority groups in
Western societies. Nowadays, however, it is difficult to talk candidly about
the idea, since the multicultural project has become nothing but an
aggressive ideology against the religious and moral values of Western
societies. Multiculturalism is not just the fair understanding of other
cultures, but also an ideological project for the deconstruction of Western
civilization.
When cultural relativists demand the utilization of public money to
indoctrinate homosexuality as a morally acceptable behaviour, the hidden
truth about multiculturalism is automatically revealed. According to Irving
Kristal, multi-culturalism is currently "...propagated on college campuses
by a coalition of nationalist-racist blacks, radical feminists, gays and
lesbians, and a handful of aspiring demagogues who claim to represent
various ethnic minorities. This coalition's multi-culturalism is an ideology
whose educational program is subordinated to a political program, that is,
above all, anti-American and Anti-Western. What these radicals blandly call
multiculturalism is as much 'a war against the West' as Nazism and Stalinism
ever were..."
Rather than a fair debate on the merits of different cultures, radical
multiculturalists falsely sustain the completely absurd premise that all
cultures are equal in value. In practice, such relativism of values has
generated not only the increase of criminal behaviour and pornography in the
West, but also a form of apartheid that causes nations to fragment into
enclaves of ethnicity.
According to Roger Scruton, people gain nothing from the amorphous
atmosphere of multiculturalism "...save bewilderment and the loss of any
sense of cultural identity. If they come from immigrant backgrounds that
preserve the memory of a religious law, they will often revert to a
religious experience of membership, and define themselves in opposition to
the territorial jurisdiction by which they are ostensibly governed..."
The pretence of tolerance that is postulated by multiculturalists has
existed only for multiculturalists themselves. After all, they are the first
to support the suppression of any criticism of culture and moral values. A
paradox of multiculturalism is precisely that such tolerance towards
different cultures and moral behaviour has completely polluted the
democratic environment of Western societies with racial suspicion and
ideological closed-mindedness. To be 'tolerant' in a so-called
'multicultural society' is basically to support anti-democratic legislation
against freedom of speech. And so, any serious debate on moral values is
automatically censored out of public debate, for the one who does not agree
with cultural (and moral) relativism is brought to the judicial system and
cowardly accused of 'racism', 'sexism', 'homophobia', and so on.
Multiculturalists who demand respect for all cultures tend to exhibit a
blatant disrespect for the Western one. Above all, most multiculturalists
are moral relativists who do not admit that culture and religion produce
either a democratic society or oppression against minority groups in
non-democratic ones; for democracy is as much a cultural achievement as it
is a legal one. In brief, democracy cannot be legally imposed; it depends on
cultural values transmitted to citizens from generation to generation.
If popular elections were held in certain countries, they could even
facilitate the coming to power of fanatical groups appealing to indigenous
ethnic and religious loyalties that would be likely be against the rights of
women and minority groups. To a greater extent, democracy is nothing but a
matter of culture, since it depends on certain values of freedom and
equality that may be intolerable to peoples living under cultures that are
not able to accept them.
Ultimately, democracy rests on the capacity of a certain culture to
recognize basic rights of human beings. In explaining why democracy is not
just a matter of legal design, the great liberal John Stuart Mill observed
that certain cultures might be incompatible with democracy. As he put it, it
would be unrealistic to believe that all cultures agree with democratic
values, or that societies might not decide to create 'insurmountable
obstacles' for the realization of democratic government.
Generally speaking, legal-democratic frameworks do not produce forbearance
when cultural patterns of behaviour are too violent to accept the moral
implications of democracy. As Lord Bryce commented, "...not less than any
other form of government does democracy need to cherish individual liberty.
It is like oxygen in the air, a life-giving spirit. Political liberty will
have seen one of its fairest fruits wither on the bough if that spirit
should decline..." For instance, democracy flourished in the West because
the Judeo-Christian culture accepts freedom of choice and allows the legal
system to reflect the equality of souls in the eyes of God. Yet even in the
West, democracy may not persist if the culture and religion that gave birth
to it are abandoned.
A recent survey conducted by Freedom House, an organization that promotes
democracy and human rights in the world, has shown that the most democratic
countries in the world consist of majority-Protestant populations. In
contrast, Islam and Marxism, the latter a secular religion, constitute the
most serious obstacles to democracy and human rights. In fact, the denial of
the broadest range of rights comes exactly from Marxist and majority-Muslim
countries. The worst nine violators of human rights are Libya, Saudi Arabia,
Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Turkmenistan, and the one-party Marxist regimes of Cuba
and North Korea. If there is not a single democracy amongst Marxist and
Islamic nations, there must be something about Islam and Marxism that is
clearly anti-democratic.
The survey conducted by Freedom House shows the comparative advantage of
Christianity for democracy and the protection of human rights to flourish.
However, the same survey goes on to indicate that both these values are rare
in the Islamic world. According to Bassam Tibi, a Muslim Professor of
Islamic Studies at Geottigen University, 'human right' is an utterly strange
value for Islam. The individual does not exist in Islam because this
religion makes no distinction between individual, society and state. As Lord
Bryce put it, Islam is indeed "...a State no less than it is a Church..."
Actually, Islam means the absolute submission of the individual to Allah; it
is a kind of spiritual surrender that kills human freedom by absorbing the
individual spirit into the homogeneity of its totalitarian creed. While Lord
Bryce portrayed democracy as demanding "...a spirit of liberty relatively
respectful of individuals...", Islam, according to the Saudi's King Fahd, is
a "...complete constitution of social and economic laws, and a system of
government and justice..."
In contrast to Islam, the Judeo-Christian ethos has democratized political
manners in the West. For the French philosopher Montesquieu, "...the
Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so
frequently recommended in the Gospel is ultimately incompatible with
despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises
himself in cruelty..." Montesquieu concluded: "...How admirable this
religion, which, while it seems only to have in view the felicity of the
other life, constitutes its own happiness! ... We owe to Christianity, in
government a certain political law, and in war a certain law of nations;
benefits which human nature can never sufficiently acknowledge..."
In reality, cultural relativists who enjoy the extraordinary benefits of
living in a democratic society based on the religious ethos of Christianity,
but cannot recognise the importance of this religious ethos for the
protection of their own legal rights, are, in Montesquieu's words, "...like
savage beasts that growl and bite the chain which prevents them flying at
those who come near them..."
Montesquieu, the great philosopher and 'father' of modern legal sociology,
concluded that one who lives in a Christian society such as Australia but
nonetheless hates the religion of Christianity could be compared with a
"...terrible animal who perceives his liberty only when he tears this in
pieces, and when he devours it..."
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Unite Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"
http://jimball.com.au/Multi_C.htm
Augusto Zimmermann
July 2004
Multiculturalism, an idea that started out in the sixties and early
seventies, initially had the reasonable goal of including minority groups in
Western societies. Nowadays, however, it is difficult to talk candidly about
the idea, since the multicultural project has become nothing but an
aggressive ideology against the religious and moral values of Western
societies. Multiculturalism is not just the fair understanding of other
cultures, but also an ideological project for the deconstruction of Western
civilization.
When cultural relativists demand the utilization of public money to
indoctrinate homosexuality as a morally acceptable behaviour, the hidden
truth about multiculturalism is automatically revealed. According to Irving
Kristal, multi-culturalism is currently "...propagated on college campuses
by a coalition of nationalist-racist blacks, radical feminists, gays and
lesbians, and a handful of aspiring demagogues who claim to represent
various ethnic minorities. This coalition's multi-culturalism is an ideology
whose educational program is subordinated to a political program, that is,
above all, anti-American and Anti-Western. What these radicals blandly call
multiculturalism is as much 'a war against the West' as Nazism and Stalinism
ever were..."
Rather than a fair debate on the merits of different cultures, radical
multiculturalists falsely sustain the completely absurd premise that all
cultures are equal in value. In practice, such relativism of values has
generated not only the increase of criminal behaviour and pornography in the
West, but also a form of apartheid that causes nations to fragment into
enclaves of ethnicity.
According to Roger Scruton, people gain nothing from the amorphous
atmosphere of multiculturalism "...save bewilderment and the loss of any
sense of cultural identity. If they come from immigrant backgrounds that
preserve the memory of a religious law, they will often revert to a
religious experience of membership, and define themselves in opposition to
the territorial jurisdiction by which they are ostensibly governed..."
The pretence of tolerance that is postulated by multiculturalists has
existed only for multiculturalists themselves. After all, they are the first
to support the suppression of any criticism of culture and moral values. A
paradox of multiculturalism is precisely that such tolerance towards
different cultures and moral behaviour has completely polluted the
democratic environment of Western societies with racial suspicion and
ideological closed-mindedness. To be 'tolerant' in a so-called
'multicultural society' is basically to support anti-democratic legislation
against freedom of speech. And so, any serious debate on moral values is
automatically censored out of public debate, for the one who does not agree
with cultural (and moral) relativism is brought to the judicial system and
cowardly accused of 'racism', 'sexism', 'homophobia', and so on.
Multiculturalists who demand respect for all cultures tend to exhibit a
blatant disrespect for the Western one. Above all, most multiculturalists
are moral relativists who do not admit that culture and religion produce
either a democratic society or oppression against minority groups in
non-democratic ones; for democracy is as much a cultural achievement as it
is a legal one. In brief, democracy cannot be legally imposed; it depends on
cultural values transmitted to citizens from generation to generation.
If popular elections were held in certain countries, they could even
facilitate the coming to power of fanatical groups appealing to indigenous
ethnic and religious loyalties that would be likely be against the rights of
women and minority groups. To a greater extent, democracy is nothing but a
matter of culture, since it depends on certain values of freedom and
equality that may be intolerable to peoples living under cultures that are
not able to accept them.
Ultimately, democracy rests on the capacity of a certain culture to
recognize basic rights of human beings. In explaining why democracy is not
just a matter of legal design, the great liberal John Stuart Mill observed
that certain cultures might be incompatible with democracy. As he put it, it
would be unrealistic to believe that all cultures agree with democratic
values, or that societies might not decide to create 'insurmountable
obstacles' for the realization of democratic government.
Generally speaking, legal-democratic frameworks do not produce forbearance
when cultural patterns of behaviour are too violent to accept the moral
implications of democracy. As Lord Bryce commented, "...not less than any
other form of government does democracy need to cherish individual liberty.
It is like oxygen in the air, a life-giving spirit. Political liberty will
have seen one of its fairest fruits wither on the bough if that spirit
should decline..." For instance, democracy flourished in the West because
the Judeo-Christian culture accepts freedom of choice and allows the legal
system to reflect the equality of souls in the eyes of God. Yet even in the
West, democracy may not persist if the culture and religion that gave birth
to it are abandoned.
A recent survey conducted by Freedom House, an organization that promotes
democracy and human rights in the world, has shown that the most democratic
countries in the world consist of majority-Protestant populations. In
contrast, Islam and Marxism, the latter a secular religion, constitute the
most serious obstacles to democracy and human rights. In fact, the denial of
the broadest range of rights comes exactly from Marxist and majority-Muslim
countries. The worst nine violators of human rights are Libya, Saudi Arabia,
Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Turkmenistan, and the one-party Marxist regimes of Cuba
and North Korea. If there is not a single democracy amongst Marxist and
Islamic nations, there must be something about Islam and Marxism that is
clearly anti-democratic.
The survey conducted by Freedom House shows the comparative advantage of
Christianity for democracy and the protection of human rights to flourish.
However, the same survey goes on to indicate that both these values are rare
in the Islamic world. According to Bassam Tibi, a Muslim Professor of
Islamic Studies at Geottigen University, 'human right' is an utterly strange
value for Islam. The individual does not exist in Islam because this
religion makes no distinction between individual, society and state. As Lord
Bryce put it, Islam is indeed "...a State no less than it is a Church..."
Actually, Islam means the absolute submission of the individual to Allah; it
is a kind of spiritual surrender that kills human freedom by absorbing the
individual spirit into the homogeneity of its totalitarian creed. While Lord
Bryce portrayed democracy as demanding "...a spirit of liberty relatively
respectful of individuals...", Islam, according to the Saudi's King Fahd, is
a "...complete constitution of social and economic laws, and a system of
government and justice..."
In contrast to Islam, the Judeo-Christian ethos has democratized political
manners in the West. For the French philosopher Montesquieu, "...the
Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so
frequently recommended in the Gospel is ultimately incompatible with
despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises
himself in cruelty..." Montesquieu concluded: "...How admirable this
religion, which, while it seems only to have in view the felicity of the
other life, constitutes its own happiness! ... We owe to Christianity, in
government a certain political law, and in war a certain law of nations;
benefits which human nature can never sufficiently acknowledge..."
In reality, cultural relativists who enjoy the extraordinary benefits of
living in a democratic society based on the religious ethos of Christianity,
but cannot recognise the importance of this religious ethos for the
protection of their own legal rights, are, in Montesquieu's words, "...like
savage beasts that growl and bite the chain which prevents them flying at
those who come near them..."
Montesquieu, the great philosopher and 'father' of modern legal sociology,
concluded that one who lives in a Christian society such as Australia but
nonetheless hates the religion of Christianity could be compared with a
"...terrible animal who perceives his liberty only when he tears this in
pieces, and when he devours it..."
--
Jim
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Western_Nationalist
Unite Against Multiculty
"Abolish Multiculty and String Up The Traitors!"