Criticizing Multiculturalism and the Liberal agenda

H

horusd

Registered User
Messages
1,830
Listening to a radio program (Pat Kenny) yesterday a former member of an extreme British right-wing group was being interviewed. The underlying implication of the interview was that only stupid people opposed multiculturalism. Myles Duncan noted the intelligence of the interviewee, as if this explained why he saw the error of his ways.

I'm not defending racism which is different, but it strikes me that anyone that criticises Multiculuralism is silenced by being labelled a racist, stupid, or backward. Anyone who even suggests that some asylum seekers might be bogus must be racist for example.

Does a certain agenda pertain in Ireland that makes some subjects taboo? Does it strike anyone else as fundementally anti-democratic? Is it not perfectly acceptable to oppose certain policies like Multiculturalism without fear of being labelled racist? Is not this silencing an attempt to subvert democracy and free speech?
 
The first thing we need is an agreed definition of multiculturalism

I'm not a big fan of this definition.
I do like the idea of ethnic groups having an identity within Ireland and I like the idea of us leaning from other cultures and enriching ours by doing so but that's not multiculturalism. This country has a cultural identity which is based in a Celtic/Christian history, influenced by European enlightenment and democracy. I'm against anything that erodes our core aspirational values.
 
While I agree with Purple up to a point, we have to look behind the current Christian period and realize that in terms of the history of Ireland - 8,000 years-odd and counting - its a late-comer to the party.

The current scandals in the Catholic Church have devalued its standing so much that it carries a stigma in many quarters associated with right wing religious fundamentalism that is more concerned with defending the indefensible and pointing the finger at others than spreading any message of Christian love for one's fellow man and forgiveness of sins.

We're not benefiting well from a religion written by patriarchs and run from a big book, any more that a society can prosper were it to be administered by officials reading from law texts without the benefit of judges.

In the Catholic Church there is only one judge, the Pope, and both Ratzinger and John Paul II are seen to have been up to their necks in covering up for the pedophile priests "members of their flock".
Don't worry, I am not about to come out and suggest converting to Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism or taking up Gravity Sports (!) to feel closer to the godhead.

I think Ireland and the world needs secular buffers between the different mainstream, alternative and pagan religions, the agnostics and the atheistic groups - and that's the job of the state.

"Control the coinage and the courts, let the rabble have the rest" is something a good ruler might live by if he wanted to keep ruling.
How this affects suppressing religions or ethnic groups or preventing mass immigration from Africa or China I don't know, but there are only 4.6 million of *us* and a lot more of *them*, so we'd better start thinking about it.

ONQ.
 
I'm not sure what multiculturalism is either, beyond some kind of large melting pot idea. And I haven't seen anywhere (even in that great melting pot, the US) where it seems to work harmoniously. or indeed is particularly benefical to the host state. Now, it might just take time, but looking at the UK, that doesn't seem a great example either.

Regardless, in principle I'm not "aginn" it, but what bugs me is the assumption that one must accept it. A view that seems part of a so-called liberalist agenda. It seem that the intelligensia, the media in most quarters,certain interest groups and main-stream politicians set out the geography of what can and can't be discussed. What views are "acceptable" and what are not. Other views are silenced by dersion or put-downs, or by "superficial explanations" , ie being against multiculturalism equates to racism.

The fact that people who oppose multiculuralism must preface their remarks with ""I'm not a racist" clearly shows how the debate is squewed from the start. This is just wrong, and stifles public debate on this, and on other important matters that might be viewed as sensitive. It is a kind of censorship imposed by people in power, particularly the media, to set the tone of debates and silence opposition.
 
I agree 100% with Horus.

Many definitions of multiculturism, but in UK it has been taken to mean ...

.. that any number of people can flood into a country not bothering to learn the language of that country.
Indeed, not knowing the language was no barrier to getting a passport, and -as if to encourage the foreign-language speakers not to learn English millions of tax-payers money was spent on producing leaflets and information in a plethora of foriegn languages.

And if a perfectly legal contract in English was signed by one of these people, even one now holding a UK passport, he/she could later claim that due to their lack of English they didnt know what they were signing -and the contract was invalid.

Not only was the faith/religion of nthese millions of new arriavls to be respected but anything that the adherents of any religion claimed was part of their faith took precedence over the usual norms of society...
Turbans for cops? No problem.
Walk around covered in a black sack? Absolutely!
Bearded guys in long black gowns holding meetings on the streets of London threatening jihad against the West? Fine, we're a democracy.
Bearded guys in long red gowns and other displays of Christmas etc ? Well, not in public offices as it may offend people of other faiths.
Wear a headscarf? Sure, it's your faith. Wear a necklace with a cross? Are you crazy!

The list goes on..

.. and the consequence was that most Brits -including those from overseas backgrounds are now firmly against that concept of multiculturalism. As, belatedly, are the three main political parties. As is the case now across Europe.

The arrogant treatment by Libleft commentators -such as mentioned in the first post - of anyone who opposes this type of multiculturism only serves to enflame ordinary people and make them even more "racist".
( Similar perhaps how, in Ireland, certain do-gooders talk about the need to respect the "culture" of Irish travellers -and how anyone who objects to a halting-site being established next door is a racist).

Fortunately the day of this pandering Liblefty attitude is over.. the few remaining examples tend to be those smart TVradio commentators.

(I hate to use the term Leftylib as if I was a conservative religious nut. I'm a centrist, atheistic person who ,like Horus, is fed up of being called a racist if I say any of the above comments in public)
 
I agree ONQ. I’m an atheist and would describe Ireland as having a post Christian culture.
I don’t care what religious beliefs someone has but I do believe that all adults applying for citizenship should take an “oath of allegiance” type oath based around giving primacy to the Irish Constitution over any other laws or beliefs. It might be a good idea if every citizen took it.
 
onq said:
...I think Ireland and the world needs secular buffers between the different mainstream, alternative and pagan religions, the agnostics and the atheistic groups - and that's the job of the state.

"...How this affects suppressing religions or ethnic groups or preventing mass immigration from Africa or China I don't know, but there are only 4.6 million of *us* and a lot more of *them*, so we'd better start thinking about it.

ONQ.
Click to expand...


ONQ I agree with much of what you say, but the problem with "secular buffers" is that they are another type of dogma. There seems to be an equally pervasive dogma abroad that only certain things can be openly discussed. The intelligensia dogma (in this case that multiculuralism is good) is a given. But it also extends into other sensitive areas, such as religion is for the superstitious, or the RC Church is the bogeyman etc. What I'm saying is that we seem to have replaced one kind of dogma with another one that cannot be questioned.

The issue of mass migration into Europe (or anywhere) is a hot topic but one that this silenced by a liberal agenda. It is perfectly legitimate to question this and to reject this policy. But the dogmatic orthodoxy of quasi-liberalism tries to stifle this debate by claiming opponents are racist or "little englanders or irelanders." This drives genuine concerns about multiculuralism into extremist hands. I am a liberal, and I detest this agenda. This is another type of social control of what people can think and say. It differs not one jot from religious control, and it's just as dangerous. I picked multiculturalism as an example, but you could pick lots of topics that cannot be openly discussed because they are deemed "out of bounds" by certain powerful groups, particularly in the so-called liberal media.
 
There is another way of addressing the causes of mass immigration besides immigration quotas and border controls (an American solution) and that's to assist in the local economies to help people help themselves.
This is not to suggest the Sir Bob Geldof method of throwing large amounts of money at problems - that is a more short term, high octane fix that, like any drug, carries with it a huge risk of addiction and dependency.

If you supply food, clothing or goods to an impoverished economy you take away any floor on which local producers of food, clothing or goods can build a thriving economic system.
Children, for example, suffering from starvation, can get a high octane "high energy" fix that saves them from the risk of death immediate.

But because they do not receive the disease fighting mechanisms in their mothers milk, they are less resistant to local diseases and become more dependent on man-produced medicines for the rest of their lives.
And if you trace the reason for the starvation back to source, somewhere along the line is a war waged by two opposing sides both of them funded (through Odious Debt) that has ruined the country, a war in most cases sponsored by Western powers.

--------------------------------------------

For the Africans who have suffered this degradation of their culture, the question becomes -
"Why stay in Africa where you have no indigenous culture and means of support when all those people across the Mediterranean pond have such good lifestyles?"

If Africa was encouraged to develop its own industries and economies, we wouldn't see so many immigrants, thus addressing the immigration issue at source, and the same strategy applies to all potential sources of potentially destructive mass immigration - cherish your own country and culture.



ONQ.
 
You cannot build a healthy economy based on erosion of local means of support and their replacement with Western means of support.
This is exactly what the Western Powers desire, because it means the country stops being self-supporting in terms of food and medicines and loses its own manufacturing base.
Does this sound suspiciously familiar? Look at the game played with the Irish economy over the past few decades.
Not only have we built sprawling housing estates accessed by car on some of the best farming land in Ireland (Tallaght) our own indigenous industries have been steadily eroded.
Fishing, Clothing, Agriculture, all gone or going.

---------------------------------------------

Perhaps its because I've lived here through all this for almost five decades that I see it all quite clearly - half a century gives you a great sense of perspective.
Yes we can buy the latest knock-off fashions in Dunnes for a €10 note, but we're not seeing streets full of High Fasion, we're seeing streets full of cheap knock offs.
Yes you can kit your kids out for €100 but you'll have to do it again in six months because you've let their TV habits and personal development turn them into consumer drones driven by marketing and peer pressure.
Yes we can buy sardines from Spain for a few pence, but we have no Irish Fishing Fleet worth a damn.
Yes you can get strawberries from Chile, but what happened our own farming industry?

We have the ridiculous situation of have exported the sprawl of two story estates to far flung corners of Ireland because of Fianna Fáils ridiculous National Spatial Strategy which means yet more good land was lost.
And at the same time when Brazil is running its nation on alcohol we let our own Sugar Beet Industry go to the dogs - Glanbia anyone?

---------------------------------------------

Even in terms of European integration we have been unwise, failing to strengthen the newer member states economies sufficiently before letting them join the Euro.
Some Eastern European cultures have seen an entire generation leave for the West. I think Latvia - and please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong - has seen almost all its 20-35 year olds emigrate to more attractive economies.
At one point Ireland had become Little Poland there were so many Polish people working and living here.
What mass devastation have we done to ourselves and our culture, with only the caricature of the Eurovision to remind ourselves of our once vibrant diversity?

---------------------------------------------

But for all that has been lost I remain optimistic about what we can no do to regain what was best and reject what was worst.
The seeking after sustainable local economies and energy usage can continue apace and with greater resources in a European State.

It means that we have to guard our freedoms better especially from the Gombeen Men amongst us.
Little Hitlers every one of them, with a propensity for hypocrisy and corruption in their blood.

Fail to monitor them, the Bankers and the Politicians, and they will bleed us dry and smile.
Fail to act in any way and watching them will have achieved nothing.

I leave how YOU act up to your conscience.
There is a Presidential Race coming up... :)

ONQ.
 
ONQ, 50 years ago we had no local industries. In 1910 we had the worst slums in Europe, the highest rate of maternal postnatal death and one of the lowest male life expectancies in the Western World. In the 40 years from 1922 to 1962 our per capita income dropped when compared to the European average. It was only when we opened up our economy in the 70's and 80's that things started to improve.

International trade and investment has been great for this country. The problems we face now are ones that we have created due to government police as to how the domestic economy was run.

I agree with you on politicians and bankers; Thomas Jefferson hated bankers, the people he referred to as “Wall Street money men” and he thought the people should always fear their government and seek to limit its power. He saw what happened when the government didn’t fear the people when he lived in France. He also saw, while in France, what happened when the people revolted and the mob took over. WE have forgotten, if we ever really knew, what our duties are as citizens; it is not to serve the state but to ensure that the state serves us.

Back on topic; Multiculturalism is not about a melting pot, it’s about cultures existing side by side, equally valued, within a state. I don’t like that idea.
 
"If Africa was encouraged to develop its own industries and economies, we wouldn't see so many immigrants, thus addressing the immigration issue at source, and the same strategy applies to all potential sources of potentially destructive mass immigration - cherish your own country and culture."

I agree and its laudable but it's not going to happen.

Africa in parts is a basket case and its going to get a lot worse over the next 25 years, to project beyond that timeline would be impracticable.
Causes:
Global Warming/Climate Change affecting grass lands causing mass migrations
Migrating populations not looking after the resources of the countries they are going into, for example, cutting down trees for camp fires and housing, over grazing and then movin on.
Lack of water and grazing.
Lots of Wars among neighbors , more migrations, no social order
No order on any kind to build a sustainable political and educational system.
Reference Somalia - migrating populations, its more than just about war.

Will South Africa even hold together after Nelson Mandela dies (they were lucky to have him)

Africa is going to get a lot worse and its too big to save (to quote our euro travails)
 
Purple said:
Back on topic; Multiculturalism is not about a melting pot, it’s about cultures existing side by side, equally valued, within a state. I don’t like that idea.
Click to expand...

You're right, but then I don't define multicultrualism that way. That's how it was implemented, but not what it is.

It has got to a point where integration for the immigrant has taken on a negative "assimilation" impression and instead has led to "ghettos".

I wouldn't say it's a specific liberal agenda though. What we have is generally a media that gets the two loudest, opposing extremes, gives them air time and calls that "balance". So yoy get the Daily Mail characters who want immigrants tattooed on arrival and those characters who think that it's against human rights to ask someone to be able to speak the language of their host nation to a competent degree.

In the middle is a whole (most?) group of people who see some sense and value to immigrants retaining their culture but that there expectations of integration.
 
Yes, Latrade you state a reasonable compromise :- some sense and value to immigrants retaining their culture with expectations of integration.

I would probably add
" .....retaining their culture except for those aspects abhorrent to society/majority population etc and that they must make all efforts to integrate..."

I have never understood this thing about respecting a persons culture.
There are a lot of nasty elements in some cultures that cannot be allowed.
Already there are demands from some Moslems here to recognise more than one wife - "it's part of our culture".

As is , in many societies, are "honour" killings where fathers and brothers can slaughter their daughters for immoral behaviour. Or slicing off a girl's clitoris. Or stoning a woman to death for adultery. Or burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre (which the wicked Brits pretty well tried stopped in india)....
..
We are expected now to respect the Traveller "culture" when most aspects are ,in the opinion of the majority population, quite horrible.

Respect for nasty customs and traditions just because they're part of "a culture" is something that never ceases to amaze me.
 
Latrade said:
So you get the Daily Mail characters who want immigrants tattooed on arrival
Click to expand...

I only occasionally read the (Irish) Daily Mail but while a number of their columnists are right-wing and some actively challenge the multiculturalism agenda, I think its a bit unfair to label them as you do above. Or maybe it proves the OP's point?
 
I read John Waters in yesterday's Mail on Sunday (don't ask) claiming that the Norris case was 'proof' of some overwhelming liberal left wing agenda. To me, it is the complete opposite - the Norris case proves that if you do something fairly dumb, you'll be caught out, regardless of your political preferences.
 
I think a lot of the media mix up multiculturism, racism, religion etc. Classic example is calling people racist when they say they dont agree with a particular religion when in fact a persons beliefs are not deterimined by their genetics. People also confuse multiculturism and whatever the word is for multi ethnic background. While the USA is very very mutli-ethnic background they are not really multi-cultural given that the vast majority of Americans have shared values which are typically American. I'm not sure that the UK is very multicultural either - it seems to be a collection of a variety of mono-cultural neighbourhoods.

Personally, I'm against the concept of States pandering to religions whether it be one that a significant proportion of the population adhere to e.g. RC in Ireland or whether it is in misguided efforts to try not to offend minority religions. State and religion should be completely separate. Our laws should be based on what is fair and just and should be applied fairly and equally to all.
 
Complainer said:
I read John Waters in yesterday's Mail on Sunday (don't ask) claiming that the Norris case was 'proof' of some overwhelming liberal left wing agenda. To me, it is the complete opposite - the Norris case proves that if you do something fairly dumb, you'll be caught out, regardless of your political preferences.
Click to expand...

No wonder you got confused, reading John Waters in the Mail.

Now you're dragging this thread off topic LOL!

ONQ.
 
csirl said:
State and religion should be completely separate. Our laws should be based on what is fair and just and should be applied fairly and equally to all.
Click to expand...

While what I posted earlier effectively amounts to this its a bit of a sham solution.
An homogenous ethnic culture includes the shared religion, mores and language of the group.

These will in turn inform and define the state and the apparatus of state, both the laws and the customs and acceptable behaviour.
Multi-culturalism may thus in fact be an Urban Myth because I'm not sure its the same as tolerating another way of life that sits cheek by jowl with yours.

Given that the citizen's identity, sense of self-worth and entire life course can be heavily bound up in their culture, it seems marriages that cross cultural barriers are fraught affairs.
Unless you decide to abandon the religion of one or both parties, there is no easy way to bring up the children, and without the "normal" rites of passage they may grow up feeling alienated.

So the State takes the place of the person's culture but its often found to be personally, spiritually, whatever, unsatisfying at a very basic level.
This is the basic level of the human condition where individuals uproot from their culture and move to the big city and the result is a lot of psychiatrists making money in big cities.

It follows that any cultural sub-group existing within a bigger culture will either be swamped by it or turn inwards.
Neither of these options suggest a healthy attitude, one is an erosion of the culture, the other an extreme form of it.

Thus cultural sub-groups can become another divisive wedge issue for some or feed the "floating voters" for others.
Compromise, abandonment or fundamentalism, those seem to be the options.

Or you adopt the Irish solution, and just gradually assimilate them for 20 years.
After which time they'll be just the same as the rest of us with benefits.

A rejuvenated gene pool, decent fashion sense and good food.
And a hint of begrudgery about them... :rolleyes:

ONQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top