Wretchard once wrote that, it isn't "... the universal chorus of harmony" that the multiculturalists have propagandized, "but religious conflict at its most primitive level." He was speaking at the time about the the hysteria surrounding the Mohammed cartoons, but the same thought is easily applicable to all aspects of multicultural dogma, including the madness that is driving Obama foreign policy.
The reality is that multiculturalism as a doctrine brings out the basist, most uncivilized and least admirable aspects of human nature.
To the extent that immigrants to this country refuse to be assimilated into American culture and are actively encouraged not to do so by the diversity crowd, then the "melting pot"analogy that was once described the foundation of American strength and resiliance, has morphed into a swirling conglomeration of immiscible liquids. If the container in which they are held is fractured in any manner, each will flow his own way without regard to the other simply because they share no common bond or meaning that holds them together.
Think about what multiculturalism preaches in its high-minded rhetoric. Then WATCH WHAT IT BRINGS ABOUT in real life. It is in the tribal and entitlement behavior that you begin to see the toxicity of this dogma; as well as the essential oppressive nature of the politically correct behavior that adherence to the religion of multiculturalism demands of us.
Having given up any objective standard by which to mediate the vastly different perspectives and world views that each disparate group brings to the table; having encouraged the cannibal and looter cultures to imagine they are as worthwhile as the producer and creator cultures; having abandoned reason altogether in favor of expressing some feel-good platitudes about a supposedly essential "need to belong" to one's race, tribe, religion or group first and foremost; the outcome is what Stephen Hicks refers to as "group balkinization" --with all its inevitable and inescapable disunity, disharmony and conflict.
Why, in other words, would universal brotherhood--or even peaceful coexistence for that matter--result from a dogma that is antithetical to the concept of the universalism of human experience that is the bedrock of civilization; and instead glorifies cultural and tribal differences, no matter how insane or irrational, violent or destructive are the cultural practices or beliefs that bring about those differences?
Multiculturalism teaches that what is truly important above all else is belonging to one's sexual, racial, ethnic, or religious identity, and not that one also belongs to the family of humankind. If the former is held superior, then "social withdrawal" from community and a pervasive distrust of other groups follows quite naturally; including conflicts between different nations, religions and ethnic groups.
The only "universal" that is shared under such circumstances is a committment to disharmony and, lurking beneath the overt moral relativism, is a grandiose sense of entitlement from each group as it jockeys for postion in the victimhood status heirarchy.
We already see the same dysfunctional dynamics playing out on the world stage.
In particular, Victor Davis Hanson, sums up the insanity of Obama's response to events going on in Iran exactly (emphasis mine):
So what explains Obama's meek and timid response to the events in Iran? A number of factors, chief among them the adoption of a new "realism" that cloaks itself in nonjudgmental multiculturalism and tends, whether by intent or not, to extend a degree of unwarranted authenticity to any particular thug on the basis of his past anti-Bush, anti-American credentials and the hope that a uniquely qualified Obama can deal with these otherwise unpalatable autocrats.
When it comes to dealing with tyrants and despots; terrorists and their irrationally violent religious beliefs, it is necessary to be extremely judgmental; and to always and everywhere denounce them in the strongest terms possible, while assiduously working on every front to support and defend freedom for all people.
Samuel Adams wrote:
The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
Today the world is being run by many "false and designing men" (and, there are a fair share of false and designing women--e.g., Nancy Pelosi comes immediately to mind) who are working hard to cheat Americans out of their heritage and to squander their inheritance. Is it any wonder that they could care less about the freedoms that are denied to millions in regimes like Iran; or that they seem only capable of giving lip service to our Constitution and are noticeably reluctant to defend it against attacks?
In a world dominated by the dogmas of PC and Multiculturalism, there is little difference between liberty and tyranny; or between good and evil for that matter.
UPDATE: Be sure to read this article by Michael Mukasey in the WSJ today. The highlight:
Most recently we have had the promise of more rigorous searches at the airport, along with a White House summit meeting that featured a furrowed brow, an earnest injunction to "do better" at "connecting dots," an oddly benign reference to al Qaeda as our "agile adversary," and a promise to suspend the transfer of prisoners to Yemen because of the "unsettled" situation in that country, accompanied by an emphatic recommitment to closing Guantanamo.
What the gaffes, the almost comically strained avoidance of such direct terms as "war" and "Islamist terrorism," and the failure to think of Abdulmutallab as a potential source of intelligence rather than simply as a criminal defendant seem to reflect is that some in the executive branch are focused more on not sounding like their predecessors than they are on finding and neutralizing people who believe it is their religious duty to kill us. That's too bad, because the Constitution vests "the executive power"—not some of it, all of it—in the president. He, and those acting at his direction, are responsible for protecting us.
There is much to worry about if they think that the principal challenge of the day is detecting bombs at the airport rather than actively searching out, finding and neutralizing terrorists before they get there.
The ongoing psychological denial of the PCMULTICULTIHOPEYCHANGEY crowd is simply amazing. If you are not scared yet, you should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment