Multiculturalism - A Cult at Crossed Purposes

They are talking about their own internal political struggle of course, and they’re exploiting immigrants and constructing disaffection to do it:

US News and World Report editor Michael Barone writes in his syndicated column about the flaws of the touting spin on a problem which caused itself – namely that multicultural programming created separate and hostile cultural factions in a society which are exploited by a left which has no awareness of s society needing a set of core beliefs that allow for coexistence, and allow for people to be different from one another without always presenting the risk of social meltdown in the process.

« When I was in Britain for the election in May, I was surprised to hear nothing from Tony Blair (or other politicians) about Britain's positive contributions to the world. Now, they are being heard.

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures are morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures, but in certain specific times and places -- mostly in Britain and America, but also in various parts of Europe. »

As for the conservative view, it sees that the disaffection. It finds itself having to work double-time and become distracted by the effort to hold together what the left tears apart. Under the leftist program, I would never be a real participant in American society – merely an Arab with a list of irremediable grievances who happens to carry a U.S. passport. The purpose isn’t in the interest of the immigrant, in fact it’s to his loss to not be positively involved in the society he lives in, and it has a distancing effect between himself and the world as a whole. It’s nothing more than a reason to develop an ulcer.
Its’ mere purpose is to indulge the native left’s desire to believe that there needs to be disaffection and “class struggle” for their own contrived moral vanity, which instead of actually being progressive, seems resigned to living in a previous century where the workers of the world were to unite, empower the “progressive” elite, and then wait in line for what an elite would ration out to them.

When the public has to tacitly do this on their own, they make up for the failing of that very elite. It works, but it only serves to indulge those “progressives” in their illusions that they words have no meaning and can do no serious harm.

« In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swathes of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America, though it has existed in every society and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.

But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage. While Harvard and Brown are replacing scholars of the founding period with those studying other things, book-buyers are snapping up first-rate histories of the Founders by David McCullough, Joseph Ellis and Ron Chernow.»

So what is it that they have to offer? Tribalism and a hatred of the individual while all the while pretending to promote their freedom – which in reality means THEIR libertine rule over others through the micromanagement of everything from health, education, work, religious and political expression, and most sadly, the making and protecting of ones’ own well being.

So what’s left of their paradigm?: without the individual’s sense of self-preservation, and without presenting the value of the society as a whole, why bother with protecting a free society anyway? Barone quotes Jean Francois Revel who put it very well:

«A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."»