The Fraud of Multiculturalism

· Multiculturalism
Authors

[Introduction: I have posted on another site on this topic, but as I believe it has a strong message for all, I would like to transfer most of it to this site.]

To those still enthralled with Multiculturalism let me introduce you to an article I have just come across that should be essential reading. It is long, but I will post a few extracts here:

Quote:
How Multiculturalism Took Over America
By: Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, July 09, 2004

Some years ago the Harvard sociologist Nathan Glazer declared that “we are all multiculturalists now.” One’s initial response to such an unwanted announcement is to say: “What do you mean, ‘we’?” Yet, even if “we” do not subscribe to that sentiment, it cannot be denied that over the last twenty years multiculturalism has become the ruling idea of America, incarnated in every area of society ranging from educational curricula to the quasi-official establishment of foreign languages, to mandated racial proportionality schemes in private employment and university admissions, to the constant invocations by our political, business, and intellectual elites of “diversity” as the highest American value. How, so quickly and effortlessly, did this alien belief system take over our country? In this article, I look at multiculturalism as an ideology that has advanced itself by means of a set of propositions. My intent is to examine the false arguments of the multiculturalists themselves, and to see how they have used these arguments to fool an all-too-willing American majority to go along with them.
The Fraud of Inclusion

The first principle of multiculturalism is the equality of all cultures. According to its proponents, America is an assemblage of racially or ethnically defined subcultures, all of which have equal value and none of which can claim a privileged position.

It follows from this that the main goal of multiculturalism is inclusion. Multiculturalists argue that minority and non-Western cultures have been unjustly excluded in the past from full participation in our culture, and that in order to correct this historic wrong we must now include them on an equal basis. In other words, these minority cultures must be regarded as having the same public importance as America’s historic majority culture. Moreover, we are told, this equal and public inclusion of different cultures does not threaten our culture, but “enriches” it. By this reasoning, if we became (say) an officially bilingual society, with Spanish appearing alongside English on every cereal box and street sign in the land (as is done with the two languages of Canada), our culture would not be harmed in the slightest. We would only be including something we once excluded. We would have become something more, not less. What could be more positive? How could any decent person object?>>>>>>>>>>>

Subscribing to the liberal idea that our primary political value is the advancement of equal freedom for all human persons rather than the preservation and flourishing of our particular nation and culture (for an eloquent evocation of the latter view of America, see the linked passage from Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address), conservatives automatically said yes to America’s post-1965 policy of admitting an ongoing mass influx of immigrants from all the nations of the earth. Their embrace of this unprecedented scheme proceeded from the liberal belief in the equal individual worth of all human beings and their equal assimilability into America’s democratic culture. But when the belief in equal individual freedom for all Americans morphed into the demand for equal cultural and ethnic entitlements for minority groups, including recent immigrants, it became difficult for many conservatives to oppose this agenda in any forceful and consistent way, since they themselves had already given up their primary attachment to our historical culture when they made the equal freedom of all persons in the world the overarching purpose and justification of our society. Having lost the will to defend our culture, conservatives lost the will to defend the universalist creed itself.

And so, under the leadership of the ascendant Cultural Left, the American creed has been progressively changed from the principle of individual rights to the principle of group rights, from the faith in common standards founded in reason, to a cult of slavish acquiescence to the will and demands of unassimilated minority groups, and from a broad, shared American identity based on our Judeo-Christian, Anglo-Saxon, and Enlightenment heritage, to the multicultural redefinition of America as an “equal” collection of mostly non-Western cultures.

If we are successfully to fight back against the multicultural and group-rights revolution that has taken the high ground in American society, we must rediscover the roots of the American and Western culture that we have lost, including its original liberalism, which was not an absolute liberalism, but a liberalism constrained by and mediated through the Anglo-Protestant culture of which it was an expression. A practical test of such a moderate liberalism is that it would not expand the principle of equality so far as to destroy the very culture that had produced it. This moderate liberalism might, for example, have extended equal membership to Protestants, Catholics, and Jews (groups that had lived peacefully together sharing a common British-American culture in this country at the time of the Founding), while balking at the mass importation of peoples whose cultures are radically incompatible with ours, and, in the case of devout Moslems, religiously obligated to seek its overthrow. It would at least have insisted on the cultural assimilation of people immigrating from these lands.

If conservatives are to conserve our civilization, they must become conservative in fact as well as in name, meaning that their primary devotion must be to the preservation of our underlying moral, cultural, and political order, rather than to its transformation and dissolution through the ever more radical project of global equality and inclusion. Liberalism, in the sense of the rule of law obeyed and enjoyed equally by all, is central to what we are. But if liberalism is not to become the path to Western suicide, it must operate within a social and moral order that is not itself liberal.

Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He runs the website View from the Right.

Full text: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12269

8 Comments

Comments RSS
  1. ellex0

    elle’s reply:
    The cost to America for the unregulated multicultural immigration policies has been horrendous. The same sort of expenditure is also being expended in all European nations to correct the import of peoples who have no wish to or are forbidden to integrate. This article provides some of the horrendous cost to provide the folly of open immigration.

    Quote:
    The Albuquerque Tribune July 07, 2004

    $5 billion in contracts: Amount made up an eighth of Homeland Security costs in first year
    The Homeland Security Department has become a major source of work for private contractors. In this two-part series, The Tribune examines how the money was spent and where it went.

    By Thomas Hargrove

    The Department of Homeland Security during its first year of operation paid private contractors at least $5 billion to make America safer from terrorist attack.

    The nation’s newest and third-largest federal department signed more than 18,000 contracts for an astonishing array of goods and services, ranging from almost $800 million on airport bomb-detection devices to $14.8 million on hotel rooms.

    Many of these contracts were signed during a crisislike atmosphere after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the private contractors who filled the orders.

    The agency has spent money in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories, according to a study by Scripps Howard News Service of recently released federal files. The information from the General Services Administration provides America’s first detailed glimpse into the department’s day-to-day operations.

    The $5 billion in contracts was about one-eighth of the department’s $38 billion expenditure.

    New Mexico drew nearly $17 million of that total – the lion’s share of which went to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia.

    WHAT IT BOUGHT
    Here are the top 10 ways the Department of Homeland Security spent money during its first year, grouped by the General Services Administration’s expenditure categories.

    Miscellaneous alarm and security systems: $792 million

    Other administrative support services: $767.9 million

    Radio navigation equipment: $431 million

    Services (basic): $264.8 million

    Guard services equipment: $256.5 million

    Other automated data processing: $175.6 million

    Other professional services: $149 million

    Data processing development: $123.5 million

    Data processing backup and security: $122.9 million

    Aircraft component maintenance and repair: $92.3 million

    Source: Scripps Howard News Service study of the General Services Administration’s federal procurement database

    More Text: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040707-homsec-contracts.htm

    PS: If I were the CEO of such an organisation, I would certainly reverse the process if I could. It is too damned expensive.

  2. ellex0

    Reply by Meddy:

    America adopted “melting pot” to integrate all into an American culture, a form of interculturalism. It is quite different from multiculturalism adopted by its neighbour Canda.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-multiculturalism-and-a-melting-pot.htm

    A red herring or a kipper? Shouldn’t the title be the cost of terrorism to America. Perhaps, elle could kindly provide convincing and direct causal links between multicultural policies in USA and the scourge of international terorrism. The main issue is terrorism. Pervasive complacence, inefficiencies in intelligence collection and coordination, breakdown , extra-legal invasion and occupation of sovereign countries, and unsettled problems in the Middle East post-WW II, all have their part in contributing to the “cost” of keeping Americans secure on the domestic and international fronts.

    http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

    Terrorism is an international problem that can only be effectively combated through understanding, joint efforts and diplomacy in addition security measures.

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/mossad-comes-to-america-death-squads-by-invitation-3/

  3. ellex0

    From Meddy:
    Conspiracies everywhere … watch your step.

    Quote:
    The Right see plots everywhere and will hyperventilate at the drop of a chapati: to judge by some of the rubbish published in the past few days, it’s frankly not hard to see why ministers were nervous.

    The Left, however, will immediately accuse anyone who raises immigration as an issue as “playing the race card” – as the Government has on several occasions over the past decade.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760648-how-i-became-the-story-and-why-the-right-is-wrong.do

  4. ellex0

    elle’s post

    Meddy, throwing a bunch of links at me does not constitute an opinion or an argument. It also does not state which side of the fence you are taking. It would be more constructive if you would quote the relevant sections that support your views. Your first link may be the best for further discussion.

    Quote:
    Meddy:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-multiculturalism-and-a-melting-pot.htm (With My highlights)

    The concept of diversity as A MELTING POT with people more or less adhering to one cultural norm is said to have preceded the idea of multiple cultures within societies. The main idea of a melting pot is that all of the people in a society would BLEND TOGETHER TO FORM ONE BASIC NORM BASED ON THE DOMINANT CULTURE. Critics of this view often suggest that THIS THINKING CREATES INTOLERANCE FOR CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND FAVOURS ONLY THE STATUS QUO, OR DOMINANT CULTURE.. Italian political scientist, Giovanni Sartori, disagrees with this criticism. Sartori stresses that MANY DIFFERENT CULTURAL IDENTITIES IN ONE COUNTRY LEADS TO SEPARATION AND GHETTOS.

    American historian Francis Fukuyama (JAPANESE AMERICAN) disagrees with Sartori. According to Fukuyama, society should consist of many different types of social and cultural lifestyles. He sees this multiculturalism as positive for society while Sartoris sees it as negative. Neither multiculturalism nor a melting pot model of diversity is perfect and the effects of the model chosen by a country also depend on legislation or lack thereof…..

    Some Western countries such as the UNITED STATED HAS MORE OF A MELTING POT MENTALITY ABOUT DIVERSITY BEFORE CHANGING TO A MORE MULTICULTURAL POLICY IN THE 1980’s. Many factors lead to changes in decisions about whether to back the melting pot approach or the multicultural aspect. TENSIONS BETWEEN DOMINANT AND OTHER CULTURES and questions about what constitutes equality are common motivators TO RETHINK A SOCIETY’S POSITION ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY.

    That is all that I am attempting to do here, for rational people to sit back, and look at ALL the facts, and RETHINK ON THE QUESTION OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY. I believe that things have worked out well in the past 2 centuries, why tinker with something that is heading for disaster, because it is a new fangled idea of fairness and equality? Is it?

    Last edited by elle on Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

  5. ellex0

    smalltok’s post:

    Elle: I am still not sure what are you proposing in lieu of the existence of “multiculturalism” in the context of a democratic system. As long as there is this practice of “DEMOCRACY and EXERCISE OF HUMAN RIGHTS” then any “western societies” are caught in catch 22. Muslim communities have always used this loop hole in your western system to exercise their rights to religious fervor/fanaticism. Perhaps, we should aim for a society that outlaws the practice of any religion. If not, then you are right in your initial assertion that multiculturalism will eventually lead to the downfall of the Judea-Christian western civilisation. Currently, most non-religious would like to live in an environment where religious extremes do not exist, but if a choice were to be made, many would choose to live under a society with the lesser evil viz the “western society”.

  6. ellex0

    elle’s post

    smalltok: the evil of secularism, political correctness and multiculturalism and appeasement is the cause of the demise of Western civilisations. Read this for a start:

    “Christians discriminated against, bishops warn

    Lord Carey called on the government to end its “discrimination”
    A group of Church of England Bishops have accused the government of discriminating against Christians while treating other faiths more leniently.
    In a letter to the Sunday Telegraph, they claim traditional Christian beliefs are being sidelined.
    They highlight the case of an NHS nurse who was moved from front-line duties after refusing to remove her cross.
    The government said it was committed to valuing the contribution Christians made within British society.
    ‘Deeply concerned’
    Signatories of the letter include the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, and the Bishops of Winchester and Blackburn.
    They accuse nurse Shirley Chaplin’s employers of treating her beliefs with disrespect, while happily allowing symbols of other religions to be worn.

    There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country
    Extract from Bishops’ letter
    Crucifixes are an important symbol and the government should end its “discrimination”, they argued.
    Ms Chaplin, from Exeter, is fighting for the right to openly wear a crucifix at work.
    The church leaders said it was unacceptable in a civilised society to dismiss Christians from their jobs over matters of conscience.
    The letter reads: “We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the government to remedy this serious development.
    “In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld.
    “There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country.”
    A Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: “We’re committed to valuing the contribution that Christians make within British society.
    “This is evident through our engagement with a wide range of Christian churches at national, regional and local level.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8591331.stm

  7. ellex0

    elle’s reply:

    elle: smalltok, despite your brevity, your post is too important to overlook.

    Quote:
    smalltok: “Elle: I am still not sure what are you proposing in lieu of the existence of “multiculturalism” in the context of a democratic system. As long as there is this practice of “DEMOCRACY and EXERCISE OF HUMAN RIGHTS” then any “western societies” are caught in catch 22. Muslim communities have always used this loop hole in your western system to exercise their rights to religious fervor/fanaticism. Perhaps, we should aim for a society that outlaws the practice of any religion. If not, then you are right in your initial assertion that multiculturalism will eventually lead to the downfall of the Judea-Christian western civilisation. Currently, most non-religious would like to live in an environment where religious extremes do not exist, but if a choice were to be made, many would choose to live under a society with the lesser evil viz the “western society”.”

    Quote:
    The First Amendment in the American Constitution states:
    “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    elle: This amendment without any riders is the basis of your freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and also the basis of American “secularism.” This amendment, your founding fathers hoped would protect you (Americans) from the overbearing jurisdiction and control of The Church, and The Crown that permeated Europe. The amendment served you well but it has also served your worst enemy because it opened the doors of multiculturalism, with no gates to stop “ANY RELIGION FROM TAKING OVER.”

    Quote:
    The Myths of Mainstream Multiculturalism

    If multicultural “inclusion” is as obvious a deception as I have been suggesting, and so evidently directed at the destruction of America’s majority culture, why have mainstream Americans, particularly conservatives, been so blind to it? One reason is the multiculturalists’ skillful portrayal of multiculturalism as a benign and harmless movement, based on established principles that everyone, except bigots, embraces.

    The multiculturalists say that “respecting other cultures” poses no threat to American culture. This claim goes unchallenged by the leaders of the majority culture, partly because they believe it, partly because they want to appear inclusive rather than alarmist. According to the social democratic critic Paul Berman, most academics who support multiculturalism have no conscious desire to destroy Western intellectual culture. They only want to “expand” the Western tradition by including previously overlooked or excluded voices.(10) Regarding multiculturalism as essentially benign, they dismiss the conservatives’ attack on it as overwrought.

    But as soon as multiculturalism is admitted into the mainstream, it suddenly turns out that “respecting minority cultures” means nothing less than granting those cultures a form of sovereignty, which means delegitimizing the mainstream culture in which the minority cultures have just been included. Even though this turn of events has exposed the “moderate” position as radical, anyone who questions it is now placed on the defensive. Almost overnight, what had once been considered radical, and had to conceal itself, has become the mainstream consensus; while what had once been seen as the mainstream consensus, and excluded radicalism, has been silenced.

    Finally, even after this darker side of multiculturalism has been revealed, there is no end of liberals who cry “But that’s not what I mean by multiculturalism! I’m in favor of the good multiculturalism.” As if to say, “This bad multiculturalism is not really happening. Therefore I don’t have to do anything to oppose it. I’ll just keep calling for the good multiculturalism.” Meanwhile, like the pod people in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the bad multiculturalism continues to take over more and more of America’s body without anyone’s seeing that it is happening, until the moment arrives when we discover, in Nathan Glazer’s pathetic phrase, that “we are all multiculturalists now.”

    And so, under the leadership of the ascendant Cultural Left, the American creed has been progressively changed from the principle of individual rights to the principle of group rights, from the faith in common standards founded in reason, to a cult of slavish acquiescence to the will and demands of unassimilated minority groups, and from a broad, shared American identity based on our Judeo-Christian, Anglo-Saxon, and Enlightenment heritage, to the multicultural redefinition of America as an “equal” collection of mostly non-Western cultures.

    If we are successfully to fight back against the multicultural and group-rights revolution that has taken the high ground in American society, we must rediscover the roots of the American and Western culture that we have lost, including its original liberalism, which was not an absolute liberalism, but a liberalism constrained by and mediated through the Anglo-Protestant culture of which it was an expression. A practical test of such a moderate liberalism is that it would not expand the principle of equality so far as to destroy the very culture that had produced it. This moderate liberalism might, for example, have extended equal membership to Protestants, Catholics, and Jews (groups that had lived peacefully together sharing a common British-American culture in this country at the time of the Founding), while balking at the mass importation of peoples whose cultures are radically incompatible with ours, and, in the case of devout Moslems, religiously obligated to seek its overthrow. It would at least have insisted on the cultural assimilation of people immigrating from these lands.

    If conservatives are to conserve our civilization, they must become conservative in fact as well as in name, meaning that their primary devotion must be to the preservation of our underlying moral, cultural, and political order, rather than to its transformation and dissolution through the ever more radical project of global equality and inclusion. Liberalism, in the sense of the rule of law obeyed and enjoyed equally by all, is central to what we are. But if liberalism is not to become the path to Western suicide, it must operate within a social and moral order that is not itself liberal.

    http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12266

    Quote:
    We have been in a war declared by Islam for centuries. We have tried a strategy of appeasement without changing anything; we have recently tried empty threats and when that did not work we have pretended that if we are nice enough Islam will be nice. We refuse to believe the doctrine of political Islam. It just can’t be true.

    We cannot fight a defensive war if we are to defeat Islam. The war must be offensive and fought with the idea of defeating Islam with such totality that, as Ariel Sharon said in his book ‘Warriors”, we instill in them a “psychology of defeat such that they come to believe they cannot win.” For far too long the West has believed that some form of defensive coexistence can work; it cannot. Such a practice against Islam has never worked for 1400 years and it won’t work now.

    While Islam’s power grows daily, our government and others in the western world will not acknowledge there is a war against political Islam; instead we actually aid it through welfare, immigration and civil rights legislation. The time for appeasement is over. Those of us who understand Islam must band together to expose the enemy abroad and attack the enemy at home.

    It is simple; we either fight or lose our civilization. Continuing denial and pacifism

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2008071214 … -over.html

    elle: smalltok, you may think that I am besotted and going over the top on this, but I am not. What I say are facts that have to be faced by those with the spunk to face it and make a stand against having our culture destroyed.

    You asked me, ” what are you proposing in lieu of…” I propose the “old fashioned system of government of yesteryear, and that is, “NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY.” And the dominant culture of that nation are the customs you abide by and adjust to (integrate with), and if you don’t wish to then go elsewhere. And if you won’t go, then throw you out. That is what Australia has already adopted,i.e.
    Quote:
    Australia: The Right to Leave
    Our Country – YOU Have the Right – the Right to Leave !

    We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, And we really don’t care how you did things where you came from.
    This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.
    But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
    “THE RIGHT TO LEAVE”
    If you aren’t happy here then off! We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted. Pretty easy really, when you think about it. [8]
    This Australian, no nonsense approach to their way of life says it all. It in no way accommodates “multiculturalism” or “secularism” as envisaged by the liberalists. Pragmatic Australians have rejected “multiculturalism” and “secularism” if it threatens their way of life or their culture, and that is an example for all the other nations of the world.

    Remember the old saying, “a man’s home is his castle.” If anyone who entered his portals that he did not like or caused problems, he would be soon out on his ear.” If you wished to be treated with respect as his guest, then you would respect his home and his family and his rules. If you did not, no one would criticise you for chucking him out.

    So if immigrants cannot or will not integrate, for what ever reason, then they must leave or made to leave.

    That, smalltok, must replace this wishy-washy fogged thinking about multiculturalism and secularism. The dormant, or resident culture must have sovereignty, and immigrants must integrate or leave. This system has worked for thousands of years, why abandon it now for some new fangled ideologies that have not passed the test of time?

    I hope I have spelt it out loud a clear. The old system works well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: