Multicultural Madness, Parts 1, 2 and 3

by Gramfan on December 10, 2011

in Australia, Gramfan (team member), Islam, jihad, PC MC, political correctness

From ACT For Australia

Suicide of the West

Multicultural Madness Part 1, Defining Culture

Sometime between the early Nineteen Seventies and the early Nineteen Nineties, every “Western” nation around the world (and this did not include wealthy “non Western” countries such as Japan) decided to implement a previously unheard of doctrine known as multiculturalism.

This policy had no groundswell of public support, and in most cases considerable opposition (anti-immigrationist Le Pen was polling 10% in France at the time). Clearly this was no coincidence.

In the interests of keeping this as brief as possible this is not a comprehensive examination of all of the flaws and likely consequences of multiculturalism but only a few of the most basic ones.

Almost all of the problems and contradictions which have arisen from this policy can be traced back to a single misconception on which the whole charade is based, namely the refusal of the supporters of this doctrine to adequately define the concept of culture itself. After all, how can you possibly debate the subject of “multiculturalism if you cannot correctly define what culture actually is?

If you have ever been to a “cultural” festival or celebration, you would most likely have found it full of exotic spicy foods, ethnic people doing lively, interesting dances and wearing unusual and brightly colored clothing etc. When we hear the term “culture,” these days, this is what immediately springs to most people’s minds. If this were all that was meant by the term “culture,” then it is quite possible (although given human nature, not necessarily certain) that a multicultural human society could exist in peace and harmony (and with great Thai restaurants open till late.)

The flaw in this line of reasoning comes into stark relief however, when we understand and articulate the deeper meaning of the word “Culture”.

This meaning is far less visible and will never be on display at any “cultural” festival, but is in fact far more important at a more fundamental level. The word “culture,” in its deepest sense, refers to the set of values which are used by a society to determine its ethics. In simpler terms, it is those things which a society, as a whole, considers to be right or wrong.

As a simple example, Hindus consider it to be very wrong to kill a cow whereas; most Westerners are happy to enjoy a nice rump steak. Therefore India may have a law outlawing the killing of cows, whilst the UK has no such law.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity or race.

Pakistanis who were Hindu before being conquered by Islam will now happily eat beef. If you or I had grown up in a Hindu family in India then we would probably also consider killing a cow to be morally wrong. This is the basis of any culture, a set of shared beliefs in what constitutes right and wrong which are shared by one group but not another. These values are passed on from one generation to the next by parents and/or religious institutions and schools.

This is what is meant by the termdifferent cultures”, i.e. they are not the same.

Each culture has a different concept of what constitutes right and what constitutes wrong. Although there is often some overlap there are no universal golden rules. I will just repeat that for emphasis

“There is no universal definition of what is right and what is wrong”.

We in the West tend to rather arrogantly assume that the principles of the Ten Commandments not to kill, steal, cheat, lie etc. exist in every culture but this is in fact, not true. In the past (and probably even today in remote areas) there have been warrior societies where killing was considered a rite of passage for all males.

The Vikings were somewhat famous for glorifying rape, pillage and plunder and there are numerous examples of societies which considered particular Western (Judeo/Christian based) “Sins” to be virtues.

The fact that today, few cultures deviate too far from Western values is due to the enormous power that Western nations have enjoyed in the last few centuries relative to the rest of the world. Nations which were not actually invaded by Western nations were still pressured by threats of military force, trade embargoes, diplomatic pressure or a combination of all three.

Before this pressure was brought to bear, widows were being burned alive in India, cannibalism was commonplace in New Guinea and Slavery was rife all over the Islamic world (as it had been in parts of the Western world before abolition).

Going back to our original example, we cannot say that all Westerners will agree with killing cows to eat or that no Hindus will ever have a sneaky spare rib. What it does mean is that the majority of Hindu’s would consider eating beef is “Wrong” even if they were to indulge in it. Conversely, until recent times, most “Westerners” would not see eating beef as a wrong or “Sinful” act.

Politically correct doctrine deals with this fact by completely ignoring it. It insists that because some people do not always do what their culture believes to be the “right” thing, that any attempt at stereotyping people is not just wrong, but pointless and grossly unfair.

Now it’s true that stereotyping cannot tell us with 100% accuracy how a person will behave, and in some circumstances can in fact have no basis in fact. It is also true however that in a statistical sense, we can make predictions with a reasonable degree of accuracy about how individuals from different cultures will behave.

For instance, I’m sure that if we look up the figures we would find that Indians consumes far less beef per capita than Texans or Israelis consume far less pork than Danes. In other words, most people consider these cultural norms as important and make an effort to adhere to these rules, even if they are not set down in law

Now this is all fine and dandy when Indians are living in India and English people are living in England but when people of different cultures start living in one country, we run into a number of problems. I don’t intend to examine them all right now but there are a couple of fundamental flaws which have, amazingly, never had any discussion of which I am aware and this is where the point of this article lies.

The doctrine of “multiculturalism” as opposed to “multi ethnicity,” is that groups of people with different cultures will live in one society and retain their culture, rather than trying to assimilate into the culture of the host (invariably “Western”) nation. The first problem with this lies in the fact that the laws which a society makes, and agrees to be governed by, are simply an extension of the culture of that society.

This is obviously true of a democracy, but even holds true in a dictatorship to a point since even a dictator needs to retain a degree of support to hold power. If he goes too far against what the culture of the time considers to be right, then he will face hostility and possibly revolt from his subjects. This was why Henry the Eighth went to so much trouble to try to obtain an annulment for his marriages rather than simply declaring himself divorced.

So what happens when two separate cultures live under a single set of laws? It’s hard enough to make laws that suit everyone when you have a homogenous “monoculture”. Unfortunately when you have a nation with more than one culture it becomes impossible. How can you keep the Hindus happy if you allow the killing of cows and yet how can you ban it without upsetting the westerners?

So what are the options in this situation?

  1. Override the Hindus and upset the Westerners.
  2. Override the Westerners and upset the Hindus.
  3. Persuade the Hindus to accept the culture of their new place of residence.
  4. Make two or more sets of laws for people depending on their particular culture.
  5. Separate the two groups and put a border between them with separate rules for each.

Now the first two options are really only one, the majority overrides the minority in a democracy, although whilst there is a huge majority of one particular culture the smaller one has to “fit in” or “assimilate” into the host culture. In other words, the culture of the group with the most political power will be enforced and members of the “weaker” culture just have to grin and bear it (hopefully).

Option three is the doctrine of assimilation which used to hold sway in most Western countries and still does in the rest of the world. The reasoning behind it is that if someone wishes to be a part of your society, then they should be willing to make an effort to adopt the culture which has shaped that society. If they do not wish to do so then they should not have come in the first place (assuming that they were not coerced to do so)

The doctrine of “multiculturalism” however views this as wrong. It insists that migrants into a nation should not be compelled to abandon their original culture, but should instead be encouraged to retain it (and any costs for doing so should be borne by citizens of the host country)

The inevitable consequence of this approach is that the law of the land will need to be altered in some way to accommodate the culture of the new migrants. This could either be a whole new set of laws, or a series of exemptions based upon the cultural preferences of different citizens.

This second option is the route which the UK has embraced with all sorts of special exemptions, particularly for Muslims who now have Sharia courts all over the UK. The problem with this “solution” is that it violates two of the most important principles which are the bedrock of our entire society, namely the rule of law, i.e. one law for all, and the principle of equality which goes with it.

Before the doctrine of Multiculturalism came along, Western Governments were compelled to treat each of their citizens equally. Nowadays, the way judges apply the law to you depends to varying extent on such things as what color skin you have, where you were born, even what culture or ethnicity you would like to belong to.

It is difficult enough to persuade people to follow the law at the best of times but without the rule of law, how can a society gain respect for its laws. When people look around and see others being allowed to break laws by which they are bound they will naturally lose respect for the whole legal process and society degenerates into a kind of tribal free for all.

This seems to be the way that the UK is heading with areas in London and other cities being declared as being under Islamic (Sharia) Law. In effect, we are defaulting to option four, reverting to separate mini nations with their own borders and laws, but isn’t that where we started from?

All we will have achieved will be the “Balkanization” of what were once powerful, prosperous and peaceful societies. It is hard to say for sure but you would have to wonder if this isn’t the ultimate goal of those who are behind the whole “multicultural” experiment.

The amazing thing is that the people who are paid to (and expected to) question and debate policies such as these have all been intimidated into silence or sycophantic agreement by the threat of being branded as racists (and then subsequently losing their jobs and being vilified for the rest of their days). In order for this to happen, an even more important principle had to be breached, namely freedom of speech, which we will look at in more detail in Part Two.

Multicultural Madness Part 2

 Ant caps and other principles

 

Traditional Australian homes are built almost entirely of wood and consequently need to be protected against termites (white ants). The usual way is to build the house high up on posts and to put a thin steel ant cap on top of the post. Since white ants cannot live in the light and cannot bore through steel, this keeps them out of the house. Now it is not uncommon for home handymen to build a wall around the underside of the house, in order to create an extra room underneath. Unfortunately, many of them just don’t understand the danger posed by termites. Once the wall has been built, termites are able to bore straight up inside the wall and into the house where they eat it from the inside out.

For a long time this goes completely unnoticed and people enjoy the new living space they have created, Eventually of course little cracks and creaks and groans begin to appear. If these are ignored for long enough the home owner realizes his mistake when he falls through the floor boards by which time the house is probably only fit for demolition.

If you think about a society as being like a giant house, then the principles of a society are like the ant caps. They were put in place when the society was built and then sat there, largely forgotten, quietly getting on with the job of protecting the society. Then one day, some bright spark with no understanding of their function decides that they are just an inconvenient impediment to progress and improvement. Next thing you know, your principles have been compromised and your society is being eaten from within by every type of corruption you can imagine.

In part one, I wrote about how we had breached the principles of equality and the rule of law in order to accommodate the new doctrine of multiculturalism but before this was even possible, a far more important principle had to be violated, the principle of free speech.

Before I get into how this happened, I’d like to explain the importance of free speech because, shockingly, this is not something that is taught in schools and is consequently ridiculously underappreciated.

When the founding fathers sat down to write the Constitution of the newly formed United States, foremost in their minds was the protection of religious and other minorities. These were people who had fled persecution in Europe of the worst possible kind. This was not the persecution which minorities today complain of, such as not getting government assistance to build their places of worship, or having to submit to body searches at airports like everyone else. This persecution was more like being tied to a stake whilst an angry mob lit a bonfire underneath you and then danced on the ashes once you were burned to a crisp.

With this in mind, you might have expected the founders to have banned criticism of religious minorities but instead they did the opposite. The very first amendment of the US constitution demands the right for any and all citizens to say pretty much whatever they dam well please.

Of course there are a few important exceptions to this. It is illegal to incite people to violence or to damage someone’s reputation with a lie but other than this, free speech is totally protected. The reason the founding fathers chose to do this (and all Western nations more or less followed) was that they understood that the right to defend one’s self through reasoned argument is the greatest protection anyone can have.

When a person or group loses this right, they become powerless and are at the mercy of others. Can you imagine being in court, accused of a crime but not having a defence lawyer or being allowed to say anything in your defense? If the prosecution tells all sorts of lies or half truths about you then you will have no way to defend yourself. These are the situations which people without freedom of speech can, and often do, find themselves in.

In this situation, the only option is to try to live without offending those in power, which amounts to a form of semi-slavery. Free speech is the greatest protection anyone can have against this, and any other form of tyranny and is the basis of all other freedoms. When dictators wrest power the first thing they do is to ban the right of people to criticize them. This is why any attempt at removing free speech should be treated as an attack on the freedom of the entire society.

It is important to understand that free speech is not the right to tell people what they want to hear, it is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

No one in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was ever imprisoned for saying what a great guy Saddam was, despite the fact that free speech was not a right for Iraqis.

In fact, there were lots of things which Iraqis were allowed to talk about in Saddam’s Iraq. They were allowed to talk about the weather or what a bad job the mechanic had done on their car etc. In fact, when you think about it, they were able to say almost as much as a person in a “Free” country could.

This is the point about free speech, it is not the ability to say “most” things, it is the ability to say absolutely anything (outside of the exceptions noted above) without fear of retribution.

If you give up that right and hand the power to limit free speech in any way to your ruling class, then you have removed any obstacle to their quest for absolute power and the question becomes not “if” but “when” they will use it. Sooner or later the temptation to use their power to criminalize criticism of themselves will be too great and society begins a slide towards dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Free speech is therefore an all or nothing concept. You either have it all, or you don’t have it at all. You see the “problem” with free speech, is that people will invariably say things which you don’t like. Some people will say that the holocaust never happened or that heroin and slavery should be legalized, some will say that they don’t like Germans or that French people all smell of garlic. Other examples may be that all Scotsmen are mean or black people are all thieves. Unfortunately, if you want to have free speech, this is what comes with it.

Votaire realized the importance of this when he declared, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”

Whatever the opinion, no matter how much you want to stop people from denying the holocaust or advocating rights for child molesters, you cannot do this without destroying freedom of speech.

Like ant caps, the protection is all or nothing.

Once a single ant cap is breached, termites can get in and you might as well remove all of the rest of the caps for what good they will do you. Likewise, once you make a single free speech exception, the foundation of freedom in your society has been breached and you can expect to see a gradual erosion of your freedom over time. It is like making a single small hole in the ant caps of your house and expecting that you will be 99% protected against termites.

The reason for this is simple. As soon as you hand the power to limit free speech to a ruler, be they despotic or democratic, they will use that power to silence opposition to their rule. They may not do this overnight, but it is in the nature of all rulers to try to consolidate their power by any means possible and the denial of free speech is the easiest way to take control of a society and gradually impose your will upon it. Therefore, sooner or later it will become illegal to criticize government policies and laws and you will then be living in a totalitarian state.

What you must realize is that if you don’t like an idea then you have the right to stand up and give good reasons why these ideas stink. If these ideas are indeed lousy, then it should be easy to rubbish them, if you can’t, then maybe the idea isn’t as bad as you first thought. Remember, once in a while, someone will come along with an idea that seems awful, like for instance, “hey, maybe the world isn’t flat” or “maybe it’s the earth that goes around the sun and not the other way around,” which, on examination turns out to be not such a bad idea after all.

This is not however the main reason for protecting free speech, important as it is.

The main reason is, and will always remain the protection of the ordinary people in a society, like an ant cap, remove it at your peril. When you hear people clamoring for the removal of free speech for a particular cause, these people are probably being unwittingly manipulated by individuals or groups whose aim is not to protect you from child molesters or holocaust deniers, but to remove the protection which your parents and grandparents fought so hard to wrap around you and your children. When a group tries to remove your right to criticize them, you need to be afraid, be very afraid.

Multicultural Madness Part 3

Before the advent of multiculturalism there existed in the United Kingdom a system for the making of new laws and the changing of old ones. I am using the UK as an example although most other Western democracies have gone through similar changes.

When a new law was proposed by the Government, it would be debated in the Parliament.

The Members of Parliament conducting the debate each represented a constituency of roughly equal size. Each and every person in the UK was therefore represented by a member of the parliament in which every UK law was passed (until 1972 when the UK joined the EEC and gave up part of its sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels). Therefore, at this time any UK citizen had the right to see his MP to voice concerns about any laws which affected them.

Whilst no political system is perfect the Westminster System is widely regarded as one of the best political systems ever and is the basis for most other successful systems around the world

Although free speech was protected at this time, there were (as previously mentioned) some sensible exceptions concerning defamation and incitement to violence, etc.

The founders of the parliamentary system understood the importance of free speech in determining the best outcomes and protections and made the parliamentary debates exempt from any and all restrictions on free speech. With the ever present threat of losing power at the next election, MP’s had to take voters’ wishes into consideration to some degree and citizens were free to voice any concerns they had.

The advent of multiculturalism marked a dramatic shift from this situation. The argument of the pro-multiculturalists was that if anyone challenged multiculturalism it would stir up the bubbling, latent racism which (apparently) exists just below the surface of all “white” societies.

Anyone attempting to question any part of this doctrine was immediately branded a racist of the worst order (akin to a Nazi or KKK member). No study or analysis which showed any negative side to multiculturalism was allowed, as it may have stirred up this racism and consequently all dissent was silenced. Whilst the Government and media went along with this, the really scary part is how the schools and particularly the universities embraced this whole new way of doing things.

So now, instead of an idea being freely debated to see whether it had merit, as it had been for centuries in the UK, an idea was put forward by the Government and the people were forced to accept this idea without being allowed to question it.

Whether you are for or against multiculturalism, this turn of events should send shivers down your spine.

This is not “progress” this is a reversion to how things were done in pre-democratic times and how they are done today in repressive and totalitarian regimes. This step itself marked a turning point in our culture, not towards a more enlightened, freer and more open and honest society. It was instead a step backwards towards a more repressive, totalitarian, authoritarian regime.

At the same time as this change was happening to Western Governments, something similar was happening in our education establishments. Western universities are founded on the principle that each and every idea is up for question. This is known as “Critical Thinking” and has been the mainstay of Western scientific and sociological advancement pretty well since the reformation many centuries ago.

Ideas and theories are proposed by people and are then subject to (often furious) debate. People on both sides of an argument try to prove or disprove theories using whatever facts and observations they can muster to determine as best they can, what is correct and what is not. Whilst this may not always produce perfect outcomes it is still the best method for determining the truth that humans have ever devised.

Under the new doctrine however, whether an idea was correct or otherwise was decided by the political powers that be, with no dissent allowed. This doctrine became known, appropriately as “Political Correctness” and broke a centuries old tradition of academic freedom.

I don’t want to get into a serious debate about the reasons for this sudden abandonment of centuries old bedrock principles by universities at this stage but I will just note that during the same period, Western universities have been the recipients of massive amounts of cash from oil rich Gulf States (particularly Saudi Arabia).

These are nations which have never been known to be supportive of Western values of freedom of speech, expression and conscience etc. It is also worth noting that they donated so generously to Western education institutions despite having some of the lowest rates of literacy and education in the world.

So today, across the Western World, ideas are introduced into universities which nobody is allowed to question. These ideas then become the basis of new laws which nobody is allowed to question and if these laws lead to disastrous consequences, guess what… nobody is allowed to question them.

Around the world, Islamic groups, often through control of UN bodies have been sponsoring “Hate Speech Laws” which have effectively criminalized criticism of Islam. In practice these laws criminalize speech which the state deems to be “hateful”.

The state of Victoria passed such laws sometime around 2004 and immediately used them to prosecute a Christian pastor named Daniel Scott who was warning people of the dangers of Political Islam.

Daniel was convicted of hate speech and amazingly the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld this conviction despite the fact that no one could prove that anything which Pastor Scott had spoken, was untrue. Fortunately for Daniel he had both the means and the intelligence to pursue his case to the Australian Supreme Court who overturned the ruling. In a stinging rebuke of the Victorian decision they found that (lo and behold!) truth is a valid defense in an Australian Court.

This case highlights how close we all are to losing our precious freedoms and waking up to find ourselves living in fear of the whims of our political masters and whoever may be influencing them (in this case Political Islam) Some may think this is a tradeoff worth making in order to protect the vulnerable ethnic minorities in our society from the power of the thuggish white majority. I would like to point out however, that Daniel Scott is a slightly built, dark skinned, Pakistani professor who fled totalitarian oppression in his home country. That he had to face it here should be a source of shame for all Australians.

Is it any wonder then, that societies around the Western world are degenerating?

Sweden, which was once known as one of the most peaceful and law abiding countries in the world, is now the rape capital of Europe. Formerly peaceful and homogenous France now has over seven hundred no go zones for non Muslims where the government has no control and no ability to enforce French Law. London and several other English cities have areas which are being declared under Sharia Law by determined and well funded Islamic groups.

Finally however, some people are beginning to wake up to the fact that their once cherished freedom has been taken away and see the way that their futures are headed.

The Dutch Government in particular is beginning to clamp down on the once untouchable doctrine of Multiculturalism. The British Prime Minister and the German Chancellor have both recently declared that Multiculturalism has been a failure. Had the citizens of these countries not had their rights to free speech denied, they might have come to this conclusion decades earlier.

Act for Australia believes that the Australian people have the right to freedom.

This freedom was paid for by the blood of past generations. Whilst we can never repay those who fought and died for those freedoms we believe we have an obligation to ensure that our next generation has them too. We ask that Australians from all social, political, ethnic and religious backgrounds join with us to use every peaceful method to protect our principles and cherished way of life.

We believe your children will thank you for it.

by Harry R.

 

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: