The murderous mindgame of multiculturalism
writes from England:
Sage McLaughlin writes:
I heard a radio spot the other day for the UK Ministry of Tourism (or whatever) promoting their upcoming Olympic games. Their slogan is, “Visit London—See the World!”
And where in this “world” is London located? Who lives there? If the historically English people who live there are the ones who are properly English, then that implies that all the other Londoners are not really English. If, on the other hand, all the other Londoners are from all over the world but still just as English as me, then in what sense is London “the world”?
Sort of says it all, doesn’t it?
Multiculturalism seems to suggest that the only way that we can experience other cultures close at hand is by importing each ethnicity and then letting them occupy a particular piece of land. But isn’t this the very mentality that we were supposed to be moving away from? If they believe in “one world” and not in nation states, why import the concept of nation states on a smaller scale? In a globalised world, should not the Chinatowns and Indiatowns become diversified and globalised? Why does a Chinatown (for example) have to contain people who are racially Chinese? Couldn’t Scandinavian actors who have been instructed in Chinese culture do the job just as well—or do people in such areas have to belong to the “correct” race to make the experience “authentic”? By the same standard, would people in an “Englandtown” in Los Angeles have to be Anglo-Saxon?
Multiculturalism does not even makes sense on its own terms. Sadly, people are generally too dense to understand even when you point these things out.
You are asking normal, logical questions which assume a general standard applicable to all people, so the contradictions you find are confusing to you. But if you asked these questions, not from the point of view of some general, logical standard, but from the point of view the actual standard of left-liberalism, namely that whatever empowers the Other and disempowers whites is good, you would find consistent answers to all your questions and they would no longer be confusing.
—end of initial entry—
Thus, the Others are English, when that suits the multicultural left’s purposes, and England is the World, when that suits the multicultural left’s purposes. You, Philip, have no particular right to assert Englishness, because the whole world is English. On the other hand, the very notion of Englishness is racist and must be extirpated. When the Others want to gain something positive for themselves from the notion of Englishness, they say that everyone is English. But when YOU try to assert Englishness, they will say that Englishness is a racist concept so shut up.
Every definition will serve their purposes. No definition will serve your purposes.
Here’s another example of how the multiculturalists get it both ways. They say that America is this oppressive entity which seized the land from the Indians, so it’s a racist white country that needs to include the Others that it excluded. But at the same time, seeking to delegitimize America’s actual historic culture, they insist that there has never been a unitary United States of America—that America. has been diverse and multicultural and including all humanity from the start, with Chinese and Sioux and blacks and Mestizos as much a part of America as whites.
Both these statements can’t be true. If America came into being by pushing aside the Indians and making a land for whites only, then the Indians were never a part of America. They were outside America from the start, and America was a white country, not a multicultural country. But if America was diverse and multicultural from the start and was never a white country, then it’s not true that America was oppressive and exclusive and pushed aside all the others. So, America was either white and exclusive from the start, or America was multicultural and inclusive from the start. It can’t be both. But the multicultural left wants America to be both. They say that America from the start was multicultural (and therefore the Anglo-European culture has no special, historic place here), AND exclusive (and therefore it is permanently guilty).
The left will have it every which way, whatever serves their purpose of delegitimizing whites and breaking down America. And they have gotten away with it, because the whites have accepted the liberal idea that they have no right even to think of themselves as whites, let alone to exist as whites in a historically distinct, white-majority country. Having been stripped of any concept of their own identity, they are unable to identify or oppose the murderous mindgame that is being played on them by the multicultural left.
If I may say so, this is the best summary of the multicultural game I have ever seen. Well done. It leaves nothing unanswered.
Philip M. replies:
“You, Philip, have no particular right to assert Englishness… ”
Perhaps a People not willing to assert such rights do not deserve to have them.
And have you seen the quality of the people who oppress us? Look at Gordon Brown (if you can stand it). I have been trying to find a word to sum up this man. The best that I can come up with is “putrefaction.”
2 to 3 days: Staining begins on the abdomen. The body begins to swell, owing to gas formation. 3 to 4 days: The staining spreads and veins become discolored. 5 to 6 days: The abdomen swells with gas (produced by the bacteria that decompose the body), and the skin blisters. two weeks: The abdomen becomes very tight and swollen. three weeks: Tissues begin to soften. Organs and cavities are bursting. The nails fall off. four weeks: Soft tissues begin to liquefy, and the face becomes unrecognizable
Judging by this wiki definition, I would say Gordon Brown is between 3-4 into the process.
And the best part is—he is now only two points down in the polls, and may win the next election!
Good luck to the Prime Monster and his Undead party, I say. I hope they win.
Explain why you prefer Labour/Brown over “Conservatives”/Cameron.
Paul Nachman writes:
I agree with Ferg that your concluding paragraphs on the contradictions of multiculturalism are superb. Regarding part of your subject, here’s something related I wrote several years ago:
Calling them “American Indians” is clearly just a convention. Some of the tribes present on the land-mass of the Western Hemisphere at or before the European arrival/invasion referred to the land as “Turtle Island,” so calling them “Turtle Islanders” makes sense. But this land wasn’t what anyone means (today) by saying “America” until the Europeans came and developed it, so those tribes certainly weren’t “the first Americans.”
Exactly. One cannot simultaneously complain that the Indians were pushed aside by America, AND call the Indians the “First Americans,” or “American Indians.” If they were pushed aside by America, then they were external to America. If they were the “First Americans,” then they couldn’t have been pushed aside by America. But the left wants both statements to be true, so that they can castigate America for ethnic cleansing the Indians from America, while also presenting the Indians an an integral part of American identity!
Explain why you prefer Labour/Brown over “Conservatives”/Cameron.
Short answer—they will screw things up faster, giving people more of a chance to see what is happening.
And because, as I say, we deserve the worst.
Hold in there, Phil. However bad it seems, know that evil cannot prevail forever.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 01, 2010 05:09 PM | Send