Intelligent Multiculturalism – Survival and the Beauty of Openness

Blind multiculturalism and political correctness seem to be the only things standing in the way of simply adopting what should be commonsense self-defense: Arresting or deporting those who propose the overthrow of our government (which is apparently happening in the majority of mosques) and stopping all concessions to this relentless band of interlopers (orthodox Muslims).

If you've got someone pushing for special concessions regardless of fairness, and who have stated their intentions to usurp the legitimate government, you would think it a no-brainer to stop them.

The two things that prevent most Westerners from even knowing about this issue are political correctness and blind multiculturalism. These two cultural blots prevent politicians from speaking openly and directly about orthodox Islam. They prevent newspapers and television reporters from reporting openly and honestly about it, and they even prevent individual people talking about it among themselves out of fear of making a social blunder and being considered racist or bigoted.

Of the two, I would say blind multiculturalism is the more important one. If that's true, it means the single biggest barrier to being heard by a significant portion of the population of non-Muslims — the one thing stopping a widespread public education about Islam — is blind multiculturalism, so let's deal with it right now.

I thought William Bennett made a good point in Why We Fight: Multiculturalism simply says we might have something to learn from other cultures. For several centuries, Westerners have taken up multiculturalism with a passion, often driven by a reaction to the self-righteous snobbery of Europeans and Americans when they came into contact with "primitive" people.

The openness and willingness to look for value in other cultures is good, and the willingness to consider people from other cultures just as human as people in your own culture — that's good too.

But over time, this idea has streamlined. It simplified into merely: "My own culture stinks. Other cultures are worth respecting and appreciating. Except mine."

Maybe multiculturalism combined with the natural teenage rebellion against the "establishment," I don't know.

But however it morphed from something completely legitimate to something self-destructive, there is no doubt it has morphed, and this simplified, dumbed-down multicultural ethos has permeated two very influential positions: School teachers and journalists. The vast majority of teachers, from kindergarten to graduate school, are dyed-in-the-wool blind multiculturalists. And so are the majority of journalists in the mainstream media.

It's not really multiculturalism that is bad. The original idea is very good. But blind, oversimplified multiculturalism could be our downfall.

Trying to oppose one extreme position (ours is the only culture worth appreciating) with the opposite extreme position (ours is the only culture not worth appreciating) still misses the reality of the situation, which is that not all cultures are equal, not all cultures are the same, not all cultures allow equal amounts of freedom or human rights, not all cultures allow equal amounts of free speech and rights for women, and not all cultures allow for equal opportunity for economic abundance and creative pursuits.

Some cultures are better, in some respects, than others. We should appreciate and be open to other cultures, and here in the West, we are — and we are more open than probably any society has ever been in history, and that's one of the reasons this culture, our own culture, is superior to any other culture in at least this one respect (and there are others).

To take an example, do you think Saudi Arabian culture is more open to other cultural influences than we are?

No, they aren't. Not even close. Which means we are more open than they are. Which means when it comes to this particular value — openness to influence by other cultures — we measure higher. Our own culture is better. (Gasp!)

Our Western culture is not perfect, and we should never become so arrogant as to think so, but it has many fine qualities. So whenever multiculturalism devolves into hating Western culture, it is as limited and ignorant as loving Western culture and willfully finding nothing good in any other culture.

But even here, we have at least two variations within our own culture: One that hates its own culture but is open to other cultures, and one that loves its own culture but is not open to other cultures.

These two variations can also be judged. On the criteria for openness, the first one is better. But what about survival in the face of an aggressive competing culture? Islam is aggressively trying to encroach and ultimately replace our culture. Which of our two variations is better at surviving that kind of encroachment?

In other words, if you have two equal cultures and one hated itself but was open to other cultures, but the other culture loved itself but was closed to other cultures, wouldn't the self-loving culture be more likely to survive if they clashed? I think so.

That means that those who have adopted blind multiculturalism (and spread it in schools and the media) are accidentally (or not) making our culture — and all the freedom that goes along with it — vulnerable to invasion and subversion by orthodox Muslims.

Blind multiculturalists must be converted to multiculturalists who appreciate their own culture.

A culture (like ours) that is open to other cultures but also appreciates its own strengths and fine qualities would be the best one to live in and it would survive an invasion by orthodox Islam.