Saturday, May 7, 2016

Multiculturalism is SOCIETAL Suicide

Hillary Clinton@HillaryClinton 1 hour ago                     
Preguntamos a varios neoyorquinos sobre Donald Trump—y estas fueron sus reacciones.
Photo published for 12 neoyorquinos reaccionan ante la idea de Donald Trump como presidente
Hillary Clinton Tweet

No argument is promising that English is an intrinsically better language than Spanish or vice versa. And each seems to serve its purposes equally well.  Further, there is no reason why the U.S.'s main language for most of its history must have been English.  It is English because of the historically contingent events which lead to the nation's creation; the same is true of course with (e.g.) Spanish in Mexico.  But a common language helps promote a common culture, and a common culture facilitates economic transactions, political transactions, racial diversity in churches, and less strife and more commonality between people groups in a nation.  As one who embraces federalism, I would oppose a national law mandating a national language.  Nonetheless, it seems to me foolish of the Hillary Clintons not to encourage the use of English in political discourse in the United States.  Sending Tweets and other messages in Spanish only encourages the balkanization of people groups and the lack of a common culture (the same would be true of a politician in a Spanish speaking country not speaking in Spanish).  Without a common language, a common culture is very unlikely.  And without a common culture, a society is fragmented.  Unity in some diversity should be the motto, not unity by diversity which is one of the incoherent maxims of progressivism.  Diversity for diversity's sake is entirely worthless.

More on Multiculturalism:
[M]ulticulturalism takes people seeking a new start and, indirectly, tells them it’s okay to harbour old habits, beliefs and grudges from their homeland. Multiculturalism says it’s acceptable to live in ethnic and linguistic communities cut off from the mainstream. It gives official encouragement to ghettoization over integration. That’s because it is politically incorrect to suggest that our own culture is superior in anyway or has anything to offer newcomers.

If this is the case – that our [British] culture has no claim on superior political values – why is immigration largely a one-way street: from there (wherever there is) to here?

But increasingly, multiculturalism also encourages (and even funds) the formation of radical ideologies. While the Internet seems to be the #1 recruiter of Muslim youth into radical causes, the funding [in Britain] of Muslim centres, schools, newspapers and websites contributes.

Extremists will use our own tolerance against us. As a libertarian, I would not ban intolerant views from designated religious or cultural groups. But, like David Cameron, I see no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize radical groups and ideologies. If you are made to preach jihad and Sharia law on your own dime, you will find it very slow going, which is a good thing.

Read the rest on "Britain's Bold Stance Against Squishy Multiculturalism"


  1. Excellent post. I might add a note of caution here about Cameron's supposed turn against multi-culturalism. It is nowhere near as bold as the linked article claims it to be, and at the grass roots in government, public administration, education, and many industries you would be hard put to discern any change whatsoever in the UK. Cameron is not what you might term a conviction politician, or a very honest man.

    Another point about multi-culti is the enormous waste it generates. Legions of bureaucrats and "enforcers" employed to monitor the work of others, and - what is more indidious - everyone pausing to consider whether their speech or actions could be taken to imply unequal treatment. I worked in Further Education colleges in the UK, and the law requires that for each institution statistics are compiled, reports written, and "positive measures" are promoted. The very definition of unproductive labour.

  2. I agree, I thought the article overstated the turn against multi-culturalism, but you'd know better than I. Some good points in the article beyond that.

  3. And nice point about the enormous waste.

  4. "Diversity for diversity's sake is entirely worthless"

    This is at best a subjective statement, at worst blatantly false. Do tell what the purpose of diversity is as opposed to uniformity... what did God have in mind by creating us different if not for the sheer beauty of it? If it is a flaw one would expect God to correct it at the culmination of all things but the Christian hope is for every tribe tongue and nation worshipping at the throne of Christ in all their multicultural diversity. Again, I'm afraid your conservative loyalties have betrayed your Kingdom loyalties. Our unifying agent is Christ Himself, not culture or language.

    Politically you make a good case, but why do you go too far? Why is the Church accepted as collateral damage in your one man war on progressivism?

  5. "Do tell what the purpose of diversity is as opposed to uniformity... what did God have in mind by creating us different if not for the sheer beauty of it?"

    It's easy to show that diversity for its own sake is worthless. There is nothing good about a diversity of evils, theft, rape, murder, etc. And your comment assumes as much. You think that God created "us different" for the beauty not the diversity. As you see it, diversity can be good for beauty. Of course I agree.

  6. "Again, I'm afraid your conservative loyalties have betrayed your Kingdom loyalties."

    I'm a conservative BECAUSE I'm a Christian not vice versa (though there are conservatives who are conservative for philosophical or other theological reasons).

  7. "Our unifying agent is Christ Himself, not culture or language."

    This post is political, not theological. The United States and Britain are not theocracies. Charity requires of you to read what I wrote, not read into it what is not there. Don't be uncharitable.

    In a liberal Democracy we have common goals, a couple are to live at peace with one another and to have an economy where as few as possible suffer from economic needs. A common language helps facilitate a common culture where those goals are more likely to be realized. As Christians, we think a Christian culture is most desirable with Christ being "our unifying agent." But again, we don't live in a theocracy. In a liberal Democracy with a diversity of religions that is not a shared desire or goal. Surely you agree with me that there are worthwhile endeavors where Christians work with non-Christians to achieve common goals where possible.

    But as the article linked to above notes, there are indeed benefits of some cultural diversity within a nation that has a broader common culture. Ethnic festivals, ethnic restaurants, exchange of new ideas, etc. are some of them.

    For a theological argument that Christians should advocate for liberal Democracies rather than (e.g.) coercing people to live under a Christian theocracy see the following book (the link is to a short, critical review):