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.
Read more...
