Neo Totalitarianism (2): Multiculturalism and Beyond

Let us first turn to Fjordman and his buzz provoking article "Communism for the 21st Century", the University of Helsinki's critiques and Fjordman's subsequent rebuttal in "A Great Conversation", and various other commentators thereto.

It would appear from the text of the article that the University has remarked, that communism is neither synonymous with multiculturalism, nor with unlimited migration. Fjordman obviously recognises this and underlines that by 'neo-Communism' [sic] he means the 'whole package deal': they aren't identical, but they frequently coincide.

The reviewers further pose the astonishing remark that the opponents of multiculturalism labour under the false impression that multiculturalists do not consider culture to be important: "On the contrary, they find culture so important for each and every person, that it is considered a human right to be able to maintain at least some of it, regardless of where one happens to live."

At which point I am seriously in danger of bursting a blood vessel! This confirms my opinion that multiculturalists are either liars and hypocrites, or that they've had their brain cells relativised out of existence ("having lobotomized themselves, having already forgotten their lobotomies", as the present metaphor goes).

They know full well you cannot preserve anything of value by exposing it to the raw forces of (cultural) Darwinism. Unless you want the contenders to fight it out and let the best one win of course, and never mind the bloody mess which presumably they'll clean up afterward! (Note also the hapless attempt to separate identity from the place of birth, or any other accidental place where one happens to find oneself by the forces of nature!)

Fjordman's rebuttal to this piece of hypocrisy is important: in the heat of the arguments it is easily forgotten that:

"... by settling in another country, you have indirectly admitted that this country has a superior culture and should thus be required to adjust yourself to this culture, i.e. to assimilate."

I heartily agree with Fjordman, and would add that postmodernism's lack of wisdom and philosophical insight is probably to blame for not understanding, that if you value all equally and love none in particular, in fact you love none. Especially if you don't declare your own dogmatic belief in Darwinism applicable when it comes to cultures: when none is superior and predatory ones are taken not to exist, except of course Western culture which is inherently and uniquely evil. Once removed, they take for granted no other will fight its way to the top of the cultural food chain! This is Marxism's grave error! As with individuals, now with cultures.

When chasing the philosophical tenets of multiculturalism, Fjordman hits the relativist totalitarian jackpot when coming to the unavoidable conclusion as I did, as described in the post "Conned by the Left, Again", that ...

"... There are those who claim that it was never supposed to be logically consistent and that we shouldn't look for any cohesive, rational arguments behind it because there are none. What little can be discerned from its ideas is sometimes quite disturbing, with elements of anti-Western hatred [sic], totalitarian impulses and Utopian ideas involving large-scale social engineering."

He poses the great rhetorical question: "But isn't this alarming? Multiculturalism is now official state policy in many countries ... millions of people are subject to a radical ideology that is almost impossible to comprehend, and thus to criticize? Many ... know that it cannot be rationally defended, which is why they simply shut critics down with charges of racism and shame them into silence whenever they sense some opposition. In fact, it is now more or less illegal in some countries to criticize it, although it could mean the most massive transformation of our countries in modern history."

I can go further than that: if multiculturalism gets its way we will see a feat of social engineering in the coming decades, the likes of which have not been seen in human history. I also want to stress again and I keep on repeating it, because it is key to understanding multiculturalism:

multiculturalism is based on the pseudo philosophy of relativism, because that is the only way one can maintain that all personal opinions, cultures, religions, countries are equally valid and of equal value, and there is no such thing as good or bad. This in turn depends on the obvious lie and oxymoron that objective truth doesn't exist, when they do claim the validity of the eternal truth of human rights!

Because it is a lie, this fallacy is riddled with unanswered contradictions and oxymora [2], but the proponents couldn't care less. To them, the end justifies the means. All is subservient to The Cause. The principles of the scientific method (a theory must be falsifiable, which btw also Darwinism fails to do), and the basic law of natural philosophy (to be), don't apply to them! But in an effort to make the nonsense marketable to rational society, they presently propose to drop the multicultural cuckoo's egg in the Liberal nest, that they reason "is all about freedom anyway" (see the Easter Egg cycle, starting here).

According to Fjordman's Finnish correspondent, the multicultural 'solution' to migrant problems is to declare a number of human rights valid across the board and for the rest we simply " ... allow immigrants the right to keep their culture provided that they adhere to the central core of our values and follow the rules in our legal system."

Brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of that before now?! As if there weren't the teachings of Judeo-Christianity, and there never was a U.N. Declaration of inalienable Universal Human Rights! Which makes one wonder if the source of the problems with multiculturalists doesn't simply lie in their arrogance, a basic lack of knowledge and a very poor education ... (we'll come to that in a later part of the series).

Apart from the obvious fact that Islam - which is basically the law of a jealous, intolerant God - is inconsistent and incompatible with any laws ever thought up by humans, we also have the minor matter of deciding which human rights should be adopted as universal: largely due to the Left's inability to curtail their urge of engineering, Positive Human Rights have proliferated over the years to the point of farce.

That mushrooming of positive rights alone has greatly undermined and devalued them, whereas they should be untouchable and cast in granite, out of reach of the fickleness and illusions of the day. Human Rights are at the core of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values: they are the beating heart of Western culture.

Leftist secularism has hijacked and perverted them to the point they have become virtually unworkable. For those unfamiliar with the concept of Positive and Negative Human Rights and the hierarchy of Rights, this would be a good place to start reading about them. Or enter the key word into the search box above - we have written frequently on the subject and there are texts with very interesting links to the subject matter.

Fjordman also sees the problems and has no other solution than giving the indigenous culture precedence over immigrating ones. I agree. Migrants come voluntarily (if they aren't refugees) and they do so because they think to have better lives in the Western world. Also it is illogical and unpractical to ask the host to conform to all the adjusting tastes of his guests. But here we touch reason - which, as we know - isn't a postmodern strong point.

Furthermore, even multiculturalists see that for a balanced society the separation of church and state (secularism, laity) is required (by which I do not mean a religiously sterile state). The source of this principle [1], is Christianity, which should be a reason to honour and maintain its existence. Postmoderns have the simplistic conviction that it doesn't matter which culture is leading! A trip to the Dar al-Islam should suffice to prove otherwise.

Fjordman goes on to bring up the chilling 2001 article written by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte, "The Ideological War Within the West", which warrants its own post.

~ To be continued: Dr Sanity provides us with a wonderful if shocking piece on the history of totalitarian education. Needless to say that indoctrination is the appropriate description. ~