Thursday, November 23, 2006

Multi-culturalism: How it began and what it will result in

The internal state of America and the state of its society arent usually of much interest to me. Its only its global hegemony, and the military adventures of the USA that I pay attention to. Having said that, quite a lot of whats going wrong in America is going wrong in Europe too, since its also sleepwalking into future racial, cultural and religious problems. Before the age of the internet there wasnt much of an outlet for 'dissident' journalists to voice their true opinions, and they seemed willing to tow the politically correct line. As problems have gotten worse, and the opportunity for dissent (through the internet more than anything else) have presented themselves, Ive noticed increasing numbers of journalists voicing their heretical opinions. And because more and more people have had access to the internet, its becoming obvious that larges swathes of people secretly agree with them. For example, trawling through the usual forums I frequent, I came accross a link to the Brussels Journal, which has some very interesting articles. This one about the background of multi-culturalism, caught my eye. The following are 4 most interesting extracts which shows that journalists are beginning to ask the questions they didnt dare consider not so long ago. All it takes is for them to be honest seekers of the truth and to have a backbone. Both seemed absent for so long, but times are changing.

'There is mounting evidence that Multiculturalism was deliberately encouraged by various groups. If anything, it is an indirect result of globalization through multinational corporations and the creation of an international political elite whose mutual loyalty increasingly supersedes national interests.'

'Perhaps Multiculturalism partly is an anti-European ideology, with the United States – and later Canada, Australia and New Zealand – distancing themselves from their European heritage, whereas Europe has distanced itself from itself. I noticed on one conservative American blog that it was perfectly permissible to trash European culture in any way possible, but when I carefully asked some questions about whether the cultural impact of massive Latin American immigration would be exclusively beneficial, I was accused of being “racist.”

''Multiculturalism originated in the United States during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, which triggered a complete re-thinking of American cultural identity in favor of repudiating the European aspects of its heritage to transform into a “universal” nation. Multiculturalism was exported to the rest of the Western world through American cultural influence, and was picked up by a Western Europe, still with deep emotional scars following its near self-destruction during two world wars, which was then in the process of leaving its colonies and suffered from a post-colonial guilt complex and the identity crisis associated with this. '

'Multiculturalism thus originally had its roots in a cultural identity crisis in the West, but it was quickly expropriated by groups with their own agendas. This period, the 1960s and 70s, was also the birth of the Western Cultural Revolution, a hippie youth rebellion against the established Western culture and institutions that was deeply influenced by Marxist-inspired ideologies. The anti-Western component in Multiculturalism suited them just fine. Following the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 90s, when economic Marxism suffered a blow in credibility although it didn’t die, larger segments of the Western political Left switched to Multiculturalism and mass immigration as their political life insurance, and wielded the censorship of Political Correctness and “anti-racism” as an ideological club to beat their opponents and continue undermining Western institutions.'

Its surprising and refreshing to discover sites such as this one, with articles by a former journalist examining issues which he would never have been free to discuss when he was employed by a mainstream media outlet. I dont agree with everything he says, but I respect the fact that hes willing to say it how he sees it, not how he thinks will get him a promotion the quickest. When it comes to multiculturalism he notes:

'nobody wants racial togetherness. Shoving races together just makes them mad at each other. If they had any desire to be together, you wouldn’t have to shove them, would you?'

In this article he takes on immigration:

A powerful current in today’s compulsorily appropriate thought is that hostility between groups is anomalous and remediable, an exception to natural law – that it results from poor socialization, defective character, or conservative politics. If only we understood each other we would then love one another. Such is the theory. -The spirit of Marxism is much in evidence here – the view that people are amorphous, anonymous, barely sentient putty to be shaped by soulless theoreticians.

And in yet another article on multiculturalism he states:

'Today, “racist” means “one who says what everybody else knows.” It is a badge of intellectual honor.'

I couldnt agree more. Seeing as Im on the topic of America and immigration I think this would be a good place to throw in an excellent video on immigration to the US. It would seem to be from a lecture in 1990, or there abouts, judging from the graph the lecturer is presenting, and also the fact he says that the US population was heading for 300m by 2030, even though it actually hit that number a month or so ago. So it would seem that the situation is even worse than they could predict back then. One of the most effective points he makes is when he points out the impossibility of raising living standards in the third world by opening borders. The liberals are always trying to induce some guilt trip and make out that its a moral requirement to let people pour in. Well this lecture totally blows that argument away. If the third world is going to be helped to any appreciable degree it has to be on their own soil. I highly recommend this video:









29 Comments:

Blogger MrSmith said...

A little link you might like if you like Fjordman:

http://tinyurl.com/vshgc

12:04 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

Thanks, looks interesting. Not impressed with the 'I stand with Israel' banner though. I dont buy the whole clash of civilizations rubbish which is an excuse for global military expeditions and support for israel. As long as Europe is for the Europeans, I couldnt care less about Israel, and there wouldnt be a need for invading islamic countries to 'fight terror'. How could they commit terror if they werent on our soil.

2:51 PM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

hello Nikola I see that we have pretty opposite views on this topic.

Perhaps we could debate this topic another time in more depth - either here or elsewhere.

My belief is that multiculturalism itself is a misnomer of sorts because it suggests that we are different. I fundamentally believe that all human beings are the same and that differences are chiefly artificial or imagined.

It doesnt mean that I think we should all melt our cultures to create one. In fact I enjoy differences, different ways - and yes differences do exist.

Anyway coming from this viewpoint perhaps you can see why I dont think different cultures mixing is a problem.

Its the same concerning generalisations or racism (however you want to call it). I dont think that all those of one race / nation behave in the same way so one cannot make a uniform judgement.

Conversely those that do believe in these types generalisation must see their own race / ethnic group in that way - not composed of individuals, but people who behave in a very specific way, specific to their ethnic group / race.

And the next stage after that is the argument concerning whether this very similar behaviour of ethnic group / race is learnt or somehow genetic...

Anyway these are my thoughts on the issue.

5:28 PM  
Anonymous Dave said...

bg anon, total nonsense mate.

The human 'sameness' myth is just a reaction of Western Europe after being traumatized by WW2.
"No need to fight anymore (ever) we are all the same anyway".
It is the delusion of a coward who as given up on his own identity.

Its mostly just Europeans that believe in this stupidity, everywhere else people proudly talk of their race and identity.


Truth is being discovered ofcourse:
"At least 10% of human genes vary between people in the number of internal sequences or whole genes that are found in each person."
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003904.html

10% wow thats a little more than the 0.01% the 'liberals'(liars) have been telling us.

8:32 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

I would be happy to discuss this bg anon. However im trying to clean up this current blog entry which has a few gaps, and write a new one. In the meantime perhaps you could explain the following contradiction:

First you claim:

'My belief is that multiculturalism itself is a misnomer of sorts because it suggests that we are different. I fundamentally believe that all human beings are the same and that differences are chiefly artificial or imagined.'

Then you say:

'In fact I enjoy differences, different ways - and yes differences do exist.'

9:44 PM  
Blogger shieldwall said...

bg anon,I fear that your multi racial utopia,or whatever way you wish to portray it,will eventually,unfortunately,turn around and bite you in the arse,read your history books,many a great empire has fallen because of it,I FEAR WE WILL BE NEXT,the violence will escalate,we are biologically(organs)the same,but attitudes etc...are totally different and incompatable,AND,admit it,humans are racists,it is a natural trait,it is how we express it that matters.MASS POPULATION SHIFTING WILL RESULT IN CIVIL WARS AND STRIFE,NO GOOD WILL COME OF IT,IT IS NOT RACISM BUT REALISM.

12:29 AM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

Dave I think that calling people cowards because you disagree with them shows your own insecurities.

I thought the generally accepted mainstream American view on Europeans is that we are all diseased with nationalism unlike the enlightened USA. Are you saying the opposite is the case?

I studied psychology 10 percent - 15 percent is considered acceptible viewpoint by most on the nature nurture debate, if thats what you are referring to. No surprise there.

Nikola There are more common (joint) forms of behaviour by those that share the same geographical region, cultural differences exist. For example mediterranean countries share common behaviour. It would be ridiculous for me to claim that differences dont exist. But that doesnt detract from the fact that we are, in the end, all the same.

I appreciate the honesty shieldwall but I dont agree with you. I'm not a racist and never will be, not a hypocrite or even a bleeding heart, nor am I one that panders to minorities just because they are minorities. In fact I think that minorities, just like majorities try to abuse their position in order to achieve amonst other things (the crux) PERSONAL careear progression.

You see, because I dont want (or need) to fit into any category I am neither liberal or conservative. I am just me.

6:20 PM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

And I should add on that last point that this is my view on all of us.

We are not victims of our cultural backgounds, we make our own minds up. Unless of course we choose to be caricature members of a national stereotype.

6:22 PM  
Anonymous Dave said...

I wasn't calling you a coward, I don't know you well enough to say.

But the human sameness myth is the invention of post war Western Europe who had had enough of fighting and would say anything to avoid it in the future.
Yes I think those people were either traumatized or cowards.

"No need to fight, we are all the same at the end of the day."


No I wasn't talking about 10% nature, you should checkout the link if you are interested in science. Rather than liberal religous faith.

8:41 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

'multiculturalism itself is a misnomer of sorts because it suggests that we are different. I fundamentally believe that all human beings are the same and that differences are chiefly artificial or imagined.'

Multiculturalism suggests a multitude of cultures. People and their habits are what make up a culture. Therefore multiculturalism describes perfectly what we are seeing, it is not in the least bit inaccurate or misleading when it suggests that we are different. Whether those differences are cultural, genetic or a mixture is another question.

'It doesnt mean that I think we should all melt our cultures to create one. In fact I enjoy differences, different ways - and yes differences do exist.'

I agree.

'Anyway coming from this viewpoint perhaps you can see why I dont think different cultures mixing is a problem.'

There are many problems with the mixing that is going on as we speak. For one the indiginous peoples of Europe are being sidelined and discriminated against, without any democratic mandate from the people. Not that I care much for democracy, but its an example of the hypocrisy of the 'democratic' leaders. Noone ever voted for the ideology of mass immigration, yet people get to vote on whether they want to change their currency.
Im surprised that a Serb of all people cannot understand the disastrous results of multiculturalism. Its all nice and rosy while the foreign cultures are dependant on the host, or a relative minority, but once they are a majority and running the show we know what happens. Look at Kosovo.

'Its the same concerning generalisations or racism (however you want to call it). I dont think that all those of one race / nation behave in the same way so one cannot make a uniform judgement.'

We must not be afraid to make generalisations if we believe there to be a pattern which has statistical significance. It may be un-pc but that does not exclude the reality. For example a race of people will have similar genetic characteristics. Likewise a cultural group will have similar patterns of thought and behaviour. The problem here is that I live in a sanitised society where big brother has decided that noone must consider any akward questions regarding the multi-cultural society. There is obviously room for individuality in all of this, but you cant deny that there is are correlations in behavioural/physical patterns in a given social or racial group.

'And the next stage after that is the argument concerning whether this very similar behaviour of ethnic group / race is learnt or somehow genetic...'

I am convinced that it is a combination, it is to simplistic to claim its one or the other.
For instance scientific studies have shown blacks have a higher testosterone level, this obviously influences their behaviour. It is also logical though that the community they are raised in, and other environmental factors will influence their behaviour.

8:44 PM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

I dont know anything about the human sameness myth Dave. Its the first time I've heard of it.

I know the 'never again' view concerning Europeans and world war two which was one of the driving factors of the European Union. War in Europe should be prevented at all costs. (They didnt do too well, look at Ex Yugoslavia).

The EU as you likely know was chiefly based on the need to ensure that France and Germany were tightly bound together. On that relationship, at least they have been succesful.

Nikola perhaps you could answer a question for me. A black, (or green with blue spots) person moves into a given area with his wife. Their children look the same as they do and have lived in the 'foreign' culture all their lives.

The children behave as their surrounding dictate - integrated with the local culture. My question is are they less welcome or should they have less rights than somebody who came from the other side of that same country?

Also, Im confused by which identity is more important. Are we talking about countries, are we talking about ethnic identity, colour, are we talking about local areas?

If we are talking about the last point then I'm in agreement. People born in the same geographical area share the same habits - regardless of background. But if you are suggesting that somebody brought up in a local area will behave differently to others because of their colour I dont agree.

As I said I studied phsychology and am aware of current expert opinion on how influencial genetic and social factors are on a person. There are 2 extremes of the scale some (mostly liberals and behaviouralist types) say that man is 100 percent socialised, they dont allow for genetic factors.
The other extreme side of the scale is a 50 / 50 viewpoint (mostly those of the extreme right wing persuasion). Incidently the nazis believed that man was more than 50 percent genetic.

But both these extreme views 100 percent and 50 / 50 are dismissed by the huge amount of experts in the field who have conducted extensive experiments on the issue, some going on for many years. I wont go any further since if you are interested you can find further information on the internet on this.

Indiginous peoples. Again for me a supposition. What is an indiginous people? What date is your starting point for indiginous? Are you talking about indiginous from the begininng of nationalism and nation states? Or are you talking about indiginous from since the modern age began? If you know about history and about population flow you will see that there has always been migration. People (Slavs) migrated to what we today call Serbia from what is now called Russia. Are they indiginous, or were those people that lived here before indiginous and what about their rights?
Serbia was invaded so many times and under nearly 500 years of Turkish rule. Are the Serbian people indiginous or highly mixed after years of exposure to 'foreign' people?

Thats not even going into the North American Indians debate. I would bet that most who are worried about mixing would find themselves confused by supporting the rights of indiginous peoples. They might well be arguing that they should be thrown out of their own countries!

I agree that there are great problems when a historic majority (note no use of the word indiginous) population is outgrown by a minority. I have written on this topic a number of times. Something needs to be done - a universal standard needs to be applied. Thanks to the concept of self determination (and Woodrow Wilson) any majority in a given area can seek that right. Before you know it their elite see that there is much greater benefit in creating their own state which they can dominate rather than be subservient to the centre.
And yes this must be spoken of and not swept under the carpet as is the case now. If many years of history are to be ignored in Kosovo where the Serbs used to compose a majority and the previous minority, Kosovo Albanians, are allowed to form their own state, then that must happen elsewhere around the world, or this must be prevented from happening using other means. This is a vital question that does concern all of us and we must come up with a strategy / answer to it.

I dont think there is anything wrong with making un-pc statements. Its ridiculous to sanitise your view and may even be counter productive - causing people to feel more frustrated and more likely to do something wrong, shall we say.

And yes society has gone in this direction but if a person is smart enough (even those with extreme viewpoints) they will listen and start to realise the error of their ways. The 1990's were the high point of PC in the West but I believe the hysteria is over now.

My belief is that we are all individuals and all make our own decisions - we are responsible, not our local culture. Local habits and customs may play a part but it is the individual who decides.

6:42 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

bg anon:
Im preparing a long response to the multitude of points you raised. Most likely It'll be a new blog entry since it will include links and as I say will be quite long. If you so desire I will add any reply you make on the end of it, it will not be confined to the comments section. Not sure when i'll be done, Im doing it in small slots when im not busy with other things, so it could be up as late as tomorrow evening.

4:17 PM  
Anonymous Dave said...

bg anon, your first comment on this post was:
"I fundamentally believe that all human beings are the same and that differences are chiefly artificial or imagined."

That seems to contradict some of the things you say after where you admit there are differences.
Your statement was extreme blank slatism which came to prominence after the horrors of the nazis and ww2.

It has since proven to be factually wrong by hard science.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003904.html

There are all manner of obvious human differences even without any science involvement.
For example the Olympics, the 100meters final, its always between blacks.

Nobel prizes, there is an overrepresentation of Jews, coinsidence? or are some groups of people just better at working on complex data and problems than others?


I believe in individualism also but not to the extent that I ignore obvious group characteristics.

3:42 AM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

I do believe that all human beings are the same. But if you want I can say that this statement was too extreme. I dont mind. Its not the form I'm ever concerned with - its the message.

As I said before I'm not an extremist but that doesnt change the fact that the large majority of human behaviour is dictated by our environment.

Yes, its interesting that blacks run 100 metres faster. Yes its fascinating that there are very few female or black chess grandmasters.

Yes, there are obviously differences and genetic pick-me-ups that allow some of us to excel at school in subjects with no effort whilst others put extreme amounts of effort in and still get nowhere.

Heres another interesting one. Jews and short nearsightedness. Some have observed that many Jews wear glasses which make eyes look smaller. Some scientists who had noticed this belived for years that this was a genetic trait which they could not explain. However, a few years ago an in depth study was undertaken. It was discovered that the Jewish parent of children that were nearsighted had all made their children read from the small religious script when they were very young. This squinting caused the nearsightedness - not something genetic.

So, think about it. Perhaps you'd be a better runner if you grew up in a gheto, and decided that running was your only ticket out of there.

Not that I'm saying this is true for black runners. I agree with you on this actually. What I am saying is that you have to look at things quite deeply before being certain what is causing what.

5:09 PM  
Blogger Hellenian said...

Something that the analysis of the background of multiculturalism neglects to mention is the Jewish role in the creation of that ideological movement.

An examination of history will demonstrate that in virtually every homogenous society that the Jews attempted to infiltrate for political and financial gain that they ultimately failed. Why? Because, due to the common ethno-national identity of the inhabitants of that country, the populace was able to create a united front against the Jew. But when the Jews immigrated to the United States, they saw a country which lacked this ethno-national cohesion. After all, there were dozens upon dozens of different ethnic groups with just as many religious groups. Not to mention different racial groups as well. The result: there could never be a united front against the Jewish domination of America because each group was concerned with its own interests and would not unite to chase away the Jew.

Fast forward to the present and the United States has essentially become a satellite state of Israel. By introducing multiculturalism into homogenous, ethno-national societies the Jews are simply attempting to strengthen their imperialistic hold over every country in the world.

1:24 PM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

hellian but bear in mind that the creation of a jewish state of Israel is in stark contrast to the idea of multicultralism.

6:02 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

Thats because its one rule for them and another for everyone else. Iraq gets bombed under the pretext of violating UN resolution, but Israel can and does violate them at will.

8:37 PM  
Blogger Hellenian said...

Like Nikola said, there are double standards in regards to Israel. If International Jewry seeks dominion over the entire world, it would not be a logical move on their part to institute policies that would be counter-productive to this goal. Thus, Jews promote a multi-culturalist agenda in countries all over the world but are steadfastly against such a policy for Israel.

2:31 AM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

Nikola I understood that you reserved the right to have differing opinions (without regard to the principle) on different countries / conflicts.

How can you then talk about one rule for them (US) and another for someone else. Surely you support their right to use whichever principle they choose depending on their interests if this is your own view

2:02 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

'Nikola I understood that you reserved the right to have differing opinions (without regard to the principle) on different countries / conflicts.'

I said that I did not need to have a position on every territorial dispute the world over to be able to tackle the Serbian question. Thats very different to what you are suggesting. Of course I expect anyone who has a principle to be consistent.

10:31 PM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

I expect anyone who has a principle to be consistent.

So your answer is to keep quiet about other world conflicts for fear of appearing inconsistent using the excuse that it has nothing to do with Serbia?

And at the same time you of course feel free to criticise double standards in others. Thats very convinient.

8:03 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

bganon its quite a simple concept, let me repeat it to you:
Im not keeping quiet on other conflicts for fear of seeming inconsistent. There may be some conflicts that I genuinely am not informed about and therefore do not wish to comment on. This is a ridiculous reason to withhold my opinion on a conflict I am informed about. I have commented on various areas of the globe, mainly in response to your probing, so I challenge you to show me one example where I am violating my principles and preaching double standards...

11:03 PM  
Blogger Bg anon said...

'challenge you to show me one example where I am violating my principles and preaching double standards'

Did you support the independence of montenegro, Croatia, Slovenia?

5:21 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

Thats not an example thats a question. Back up the claim you've already made with evidence you already have instead of trying to hastily prompt some. Looks like you're making allegations you cant back up....again.

10:13 PM  
Blogger editor said...

Bg anon,

I see that a lot of your arguments come from psychology, which is, as Karl Popper had it, a Pseudo-Science.

It is one thing to have justified arguments as a result of historical and some social aspects. But when you revert your arguments to psychology it is obvious that your comments are simply the result of your perusal in the area of psychology.

5:40 PM  
Blogger editor said...

It is very difficuly for you to look at a topic without your psychology goggles on.

But when/if you remove them, you will understand other positions and not reduce them to a crude science that is largely nonsense.

5:47 PM  
Blogger editor said...

BG ANON SAID:

Nikola perhaps you could answer a question for me. A black, (or green with blue spots) person moves into a given area with his wife. Their children look the same as they do and have lived in the 'foreign' culture all their lives.
The children behave as their surrounding dictate - integrated with the local culture. My question is are they less welcome or should they have less rights than somebody who came from the other side of that same country?)

This a prime example of an unduly incorpration of the sociological/environmental aspects of psychology.

5:52 PM  
Blogger Nationalist14 said...

Nikola may I congratulate you upon your weblog always ana rather engaging read I feel appreciation must also go to “Hellenian” regarding the concise but articulate rationalization pertaining to the Jewish question. Its seems that “Bg anon” merely wishes to bait you with his rather simplistic breakdown of the nurture/nature debate specifically that the distinct races of man developed diverse tactic’s to contend with their very different environs leading to very real physical differences. These rather different strategies ultimately led to physical differences in brain size consequently affecting intelligence and a number of other physical characteristics however, it also meant that different races evolved with a markedly different mindset which disastrously influence’s race relations in the west to this day. I would of thought that rather than baiting a sharp mind would at first seek to understand their subject matter alas I feel this is not the case regarding “Bg anon” and one would be best advised not to rise to his bait. I wish you well Nikola and look forward to many interesting reads take care Nat14.

11:58 PM  
Blogger Nikola said...

Well thank you Nat14. It would seem that bganon got frustrated and has left of his own accord. His hollow claim (that he was here to exchange viewpoints and with no preconcieved agenda)is nonsense. The accusations he made about me remain unsubstantiated. When prompted to back up the claims, he did a runner.

4:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home