An apology in advance for this very long post. It reads more like an essay than a blog but it does make a strong argument for Multiculturalism as a dangerous cult.
-- NoraThe slang abbreviation ‘multi-culti’ (for a supporter of multiculturalism) has gained widespread use in anti-multiculturalism debates following bombings in London carried out by English-born Islamic terrorists.
Inspired by the term, I came to realise that multiculturalism is literally a dangerous brain-washing cult, owing much to the practices of widely condemned cult activity in other spheres.
It doesn’t mean that the West can’t welcome migrants or enjoy souvlaki, tandoori, baseball or Chinese New Year because of our differing ethnic origins.
But I contend that these examples are generally the public’s understanding of multiculturalism, while true Multiculturalism’s Machiavellian intent is more damaging to the interest of peace and rule of law in Western civilisation.
Multiculturalism – its definition and practiceLet’s start by arriving at a definition of multiculturalism. The most simple and succinct comes from
dictionary.comOf or relating to a social or educational theory that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only a mainstream culture.
Let’s examine this further:
encourages interest in many cultures within a society
Many cultures, one (a) society. Okay what do we mean by society? Again dictionary.com offers us a very interesting
result:
A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
The astute will already recognise the problem here.
Multiculturalism taken to its natural conclusion is incompatible with the operation of a society because multiculturalism as practiced for the past 30 years refuses to recognise the necessity of being part of
one society.
It is a problem recognised and
articulated last year by Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality in the UK.
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said that multiculturalism was out of date and no longer useful, not least because it encouraged “separateness” between communities. As British-born Muslims burnt the Union Jack on the streets of London yesterday, he said that there was an urgent need to “assert a core of Britishness” across society.
That is correct, although to point out that permitting non-English speaking enclaves in English-speaking countries is detrimental to those actually living in those enclaves as well as society as a whole would have you vilified as a xenophobic, redneck racist as was Australia’s
Pauline Hanson.
The problems of multicultural ghettoisation are:
-- The creation of fortress zones in which members of the dominant, original culture are not welcome
-- Multiple generations of families who do not speak the official language well enough to participate fully in wider society, and
-- A belief that the new migrant’s social customs trump those of the host country to the point where the government feel it necessary to establish multiculturally unique services such as
Multicultural Mental Health Australia The importance of integrating into the society that you choose to live in is quickly enumerated here:
-- Increased societal, educational and employment involvement provides the best tools to avoid poverty
-- Increased mainstream society contact helps create safer communities by eliminating the natural distrust of the unfamiliar and to share the burden of policing across the community as a whole
-- Increased opportunity to learn from and be enriched by others from diverse cultural backgrounds
So we need to examine why such a commonsense conclusion is so roundly denounced by multiculturalism’s advocates.
Multiculturalism, the cult of theoretical utopianismUnlike religious cults as we know them, Multiculturalism (now used here as a proper noun) does not rely on a single charismatic leader; however it does demand blind adherence to a charismatic ideology.
The facilitators of this dogma are university academics/lecturers in the humanities and social science faculties who use their power to reward or punish students through grading to proselytise their beliefs.
That influence permeates into the wider community via inculcated graduates and members of the media who, believing these academics have a greater wisdom or access to some larger truth simply because of their position, unquestioningly broadcast their commandments.
Using the model of cult identification so neatly framed by the web site
Leadership U, the similarities between Multiculturalism and deadly cults such as Heaven’s Gate and the Branch Davidians becomes apparent.
The definition follows a rather obvious mnemonic:
C is for - Cut off from the world. Cult leaders and followers are isolated and cut off from normal interaction with people outside the group. They do not have the corrective influence of other perspectives.
The proponents of Multiculturalism in adademia and the media are cut off by the ivory tower mindset and are rarely open to other perspectives. Their work is peer reviewed but their peers hold similar beliefs, so their contentions are never challenged. They shut down any attempt to reason or rationally debate their beliefs by levelling accusations of racism.
U is for - Undernourished--poor nutritional intake and sleep deprivation often characterizes cult members. They are near exhaustion and their resistance is low, so they can be easily manipulated, deceived, and exploited.
Of course one would be hard pressed to argue that Multiculturalists are physically undernourished but it is true that they are spiritually and academically starved.
Followers do not have a strong conventional religious belief system and tend to hold particular contempt for the Judeo-Christian beliefs on which Western civilisation is founded.
Recognising the need for all human beings to have a belief system, Voltaire
stated: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
Multiculturalist leaders cling to Humanism as a belief system, one which has, at its core, moral relativism – that is, there is no universal truth, only a series of individual human perspectives, any and all of which are true and correct.
As should be plain to see, this thinking presents a problem for a cohesive society. If all perspectives are correct, then any action is permissible providing you can offer a personal justification for it.
In other words, breaking the speed limit is not wrong if you have an excuse – ‘it may be generally wrong, but it is not wrong now because I have a reason for it’. Or, as a driver shown on the New Zealand television program
Motorway Patrol put it after being ticketed for travelling at 140kmh: “I’m from South Africa – we always drive around 130 there.”
Secondly, Multiculturalists are weaned off learning history. It is dismissed as ‘dead white male’ stuff.
Sadly these people are being starved of the historical perspective that proves time and again that people will behave in predictable ways to the same sets of conditions.
Multiculturalists believe their form of enlightenment will prevent such mistakes. It’s the ‘snobbery of chronology’ as author CS Lewis so beautifully put it.
L is for - Leadership is authoritarian and coercive. The leader claims divinity or special knowledge and authority from God, and often uses deception and has hidden objectives. Unquestioning obedience is expected. This leads the cult follower into total dependence upon the cult for belief, behavior and practice. He or she loses personal freedom and the ability to make choices.
As pointed out earlier, the cult leaders of Multiculturalism are often academics in universities and schools, the media and also in the policymaking wings of government bureaucracy.
At the educational level, they hold a position of power over young, impressionable students. They teach, correct and punish students who do not demonstrate an adequate assimilation of this information.
The pressures of university life and on into the workplace and a society inculcated with Multiculturalism makes expressing dissent, or questioning the assumptions given, difficult in the extreme.
T is for - Theology or beliefs of a cult always involve some unique or new perspectives, and they claim that truth is only found in what the cult says. Cults often promote the "we/they" syndrome, which also keeps members dependent and loyal to the cult.
Again, as pointed out earlier, those who query multiculturalism are denounced as racists, a charge which is designed to shut down any debate.
Proponents of Multiculturalism also claim their educational credentials give them access to this knowledge
In other words, those who embrace multiculturalism are good; those who question it are ignorant or, worse, racists.
ConclusionMulticulturalism is completely incompatible with a society that seeks stability and progress since this requires one society and one set of beliefs on which all agree to enable it to move forward. The competing demands of a Multicultural society will always spiral down to anarchy.
To argue in favour of Multiculturalism requires brain twisting turns of logic as to be incomprehensible or to be left unable to offer an explanation when:
Girls are forced into marriage against their will.
Young men in feel it’s their right to rape their fellow Australians.
Religious leaders believe that it is alright to wage war against those who do not share their beliefs.
Artists believe they have a right to drink drive because Australia is ‘their land’.
Finally, an answer to Liz Jackson, host of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Media Watch program who
demanded that
columnist Mark Steyn produce evidence of such egregious errors of multiculturalism (not that he really needs any defence from us).
She asks:
And Mark, we'd also like to know what evidence you have for your claim that multiculturalists have:
'...taken a relaxed view of the more, ah, robust forms of cultural diversity — Sydney gang rapes…
— The Australian, 25 July 2005'
If it were true, we'd agree it's outrageous, but show us some 'where and when'.
We're all in favour of shining the light of public attention on egregious statements made by any group or individual in our community.
We think it's far better than burning their books.
The answer and the evidence is to be found on the pages of our daily newspapers and electronic news.
When the Sydney gang rapes took place, attention was focussed on the criminal act of rape. The culpability of Multiculturalism in its facilitation was not raised.
This has happened only since loss of life in London, a city with which many Australians have a particular kinship (noted effectively by Prime Minister John Howard), and we discover that the perpetrators were English-born.
It may be heartening to hear Ms Jackson state:
We're all in favour of shining the light of public attention on egregious statements made by any group or individual in our community, particularly when there has been so much of it in the news this past week.
But it is impossible to expect the media, which is to Multiculturalism what propagandist Joseph Goebbels was to Nazism, to stop spreading its gospel of ignorance and despair.
-- Nora
