You Cannot Love Your Own People and Be Multicultural

Here’s a question to think about: globalface

Is it possible to appreciate and love your culture and be multicultural at the same time?

I for one think it is utterly impossible to adhere to both. My culture factors into my identity and personality (as do many other things, like genetics and nurturing by my parents when I was younger for example). As such, it separates me in specific ways from those not parented by the same cultural standards. Culture therefore has a natural way of dividing people, at least in a particular way.

Multiculturalism assumes that the standards born out of culture are not only relative but also arbitrary. A history of each society, how it has evolved, according to those who have ascended to power, have determined these arbitrary standards which are neither true or false. Nobody has the “Truth”. We all have different yet equally valuable ways of encountering reality. Blending those interpretations, ideas, customs and “truths”, etc. will only enrich our human experience, so the story goes according to a Multiculturalist.

Multiculturalism is then asking you to accept that your culture and civilization is no better than anyone else’s. It says you can love all cultures the same. While this seems noble and respectable, especially in a civilization that has been told time and again that by having a sense of pride in one’s history, in their culture and customs, even their identity is wrong, it is anything but respectable. One can only have a sense of pride and appreciation of a standard in their life if it sets them apart from others in such a way that puts them closer to an ideal. The only thing that can do this is truth. It is never respectable to neutralize your cultural standard because it is never respectable to deny truth – or even imply that your cultural standards are not true or even aligned with such a thing.  People are proud of their cultures because people naturally believe – even if they are wrong or until proven wrong – that their culture and cultural practices isn’t lacking truth.

The only people who are happy to accept multiculturalism are Westerners, especially white people. But we must stop this destructive behavior and this experiment should be closed off, locked away, and sunk to the deepest depths and darkest hole. You simply cannot love your culture, your people, your way of life and invite an agenda that asks you to think ever less of those things. If some social ideology came about that prompted you to love your family less so you could love non-family more and more, you would naturally be suspicious – but when Multiculturalism and “diversity” implicitly ask you to love your people and heritage less and less in order to love those who are not of it more and more (even at the expense of your people and heritage) people are more than happy and to do it.

Rather than a respectable and loving thing, multiculturalism is anti-culture, anti-human and a kind of hatred. It is a kind of hatred because it exclusively focuses on the unsatisfactory things of a culture (mainly white cultures) until the people are so disgusted with it they are willing to invite every other cultural way in as kind of redemption and enriching feature. This can only point to one thing: a sense of pride and personal respect within a people is dried up and evaporated. This cannot be a source of love – a proper love of self or a love of the many things that make you YOU (true diversity)


The Tyranny of Diversity

Culture, by its very nature, discriminates. It sets a people who give it a life apart from those not embraced by it. A culture, like multiculturalisma nation, always shares a unique history and relationship with a very particular group of people. White Europeans are responsible for the high culture of Western Civilization. Their work in science and medicine, technology and engineering, political and economic policies have been so pragmatically important that foreigners literally risk their lives in order to benefit from these rewards. But the problem of immigration – or more properly legislated foreign colonization – is quite clear today: foreigners are not willing to renounce their heritage and history, their culture or their ethnic, racial and national affiliations. Many of them are keen on the advantageous position they are in due in large part to Multiculturalism and diversity, for the vast majority of foreigners exploit white people, who are conditioned by the agendas of diversity and inclusivity to welcome, tolerate, give and support those who are not white as a sign of good faith and moral character (and if you do not support non-whites, then you simply lack these traits and are branded a “racist” and “bigot”). In order for Liberal egalitarianism and multicultural agendas to succeed, the barriers of a culture, which is a unique element for any people, must be broken down in order for absolute inclusivity of all people. While this is now often promoted as something good and enriching – even enlightening – liberal egalitarianism and multiculturalism is an anti cultural movement and anti human. Anything that seeks to subtley destroy a fundamental element of human identity and personality cannot be good for human beings in that regard, or at least it cannot be good for a particular group of humans. A movement that subverts the very culture of a people cannot, at the same time, be a benefit to that culture. A culture distinguishes a group of people from another group of people, so it’s an element of identity and personality. The attractiveness and beneficial nature of Western Civilization has brought all kinds of people here in search of “something better”. This presupposes the fact that Western Civilization is a higher and more superior culture than the rest. There is no other reason for mass migration from the Third World except that Western Culture is “something better”. But a culture is not some disembodied entity that informs a people, rather a people create and inform a cultural standard. Thus, culture reflects the characteristics of ethnicity and race. We cannot blame the culture for creating people, we must blame the people for creating the culture. Only they can change the culture and indeed it is their responsibility to do so  (and any time another people tries to change a culture not their own, there is the feeling of a threat). This is clearly seen in more Conservatively Liberal policies where changing the culture of blacks will inevitable lead to changed black people. But this has backfired and made blacks more isolated and more threatened as a group. The reason is simple: Those outside a group that seek to change the cultural standards of a people will generate anxiety and a feeling of threat within that people (and following this are tensions between those groups). But the same is happening to white people and white, Western Civilization on a whole. Europe, America and Canada are bleeding. Multiculturalism and diversity are a weaponized means to conquer Western civilization. For as long as Western Civilization is herald as “something better” there must necessarily be something worse, i.e. the Third world. The conditions that make the Western world great must be shattered in order to break down those last discriminating features which exclude non-westerners. Thus, multiculturalism and diversity ask us to appreciate the differences of other groups as an equal yet different avenue of human expression. But it is these very differences of other, non Western groups that have made non-Westerners “something less” and in search of “something better”. So, asking us to appreciate those cultural differences as adding to our culture is a ridiculous request! By asking us to view our cultural standards, our traditions, our religious history as something equal to other cultures and histories amounts to us no longer favoring and revering our way of life as something unique. These requests are the requests of “outsiders” and they are intended to obliterate any responsibility of the foreigner and the minority to adapt and therefore appreciate 1) Western society and 2) the fact that their cultural standards were not capable in providing them with a happy life. The “outsider” makes these requests in order to easily transit from their society to ours and thereby absorb resourses necessary for their success without identifying as one of us (and without admitting the failures of his own culture). This is precisely what the vast majority of Hispanics do by coming here, bleeding our social services, exploiting the economy and then sending that money back to their motherlands. When a culture is bastardized and perverted, the people related to it are overthrown in their own countries, they’re polluted from without by ideas and theories which have proven historically harmful for other people and nations, and they are asked never under any circumstances to question the differences of others, even if they are a swelling infection

For this reason, liberal egalitarianism and multiculturalism is the strong arm and tyranny of the minority, which seeks to supplant the majority, it’s history and rewards, dismantling their identity in order to take what is not rightfully theirs from another people. It lessens the quality and pride of a people for the sake of the outsider who, more often than not, hates Westerners but has no problem taking our benefits. When the pride of a people has diminished enough, they will stand idly by and watch as others loot and riot, their economy bled dry, and as their race is interbred to the point of extinction but many of them will continue to say “This is all a good thing”.
When you hear “Diversity” or “multicultural” they should be reflags symbolizing the tyranny and intended destruction of Western civilization.

From Diversity to Tribalism

To me, there is an irony about progressive agendas like multiculturalism. The purpose of multiculturalism is a more “enriched” community; a more diversified society that fulfills the entirety of each human person. With racial violence on the rise, with more and more polarization between various groups of people, diversity seems to be driving people away from the “enrichment” and “fulfillment” it promised. As more people are blended, and as more difference is conflated, various groups seem to descend into tribal-like mentalities ( a strong urge to unite with one’s social group). Instead of harmony, we’re seeing more group segregation once again, likely because of some sinking suspicion or intuition that personal qualities are being effaced and ignored by these movements. An instinct that may be suppressed by PC malarkey may also be biting back in a more dangerous way than ever. People seem more suspicious of difference than welcoming of it anymore. If it can be shown that diversity movements, like multiculturalism for example, whose intention is to unite, leads to segregation then this would be an irony for the history books. But Liberal logic will no doubt demand more diversification as a solution to this problem.

What does a Conservative conserve? A call to Conservatives.

The name “Conservative” suggests that something is being conserved and that the very thing being conserved is worth the effort of preservation. But what exactly is that? Do many self-proclaimed Conservatives know what they are conserving? And if they don’t, does this discredit them in any way? After all, if you cannot say what you are conserving, people start to suspect if you are conserving anything at all, and this in turn discredits your very name and identity as a conservative. Simply put, it’s embarrassing. So what do Conservatives conserve? People will answer in various ways – freedom, the constitution, the Christian faith – but none of these can adequately express the object which the Conservative wishes to protect. I will get to these momentarily.

Firstly, we need to understand that America, as it is currently, is a pluralistic society – or a diverse society – and as such it values variety in every possible way. Before moving forward, I do not intend for this word “diverse”, as I use it to describe our society, to extend narrowly toward race alone. This would be a mistaken interpretation. The term “diverse” is much more broad as it is used here. It is not meant to indicate a hostile view toward societies that have various people of different color. If you cannot understand this, please do not read any further. Your robotic mechanism of repeating the term “racist” over and over will surely kick in and I will not tolerate it.

A diverse society is a society that has no common culture that informs or guides the citizens of a nation. Languages, beliefs and values are many rather than one. In a diverse society or nation, culture and custom are also many. We are not talking about the fact that societies have differences, but that a society functions according to an ideology that it should be plural not unitary or one regarding social, political, and cultural life. The variety of cultures merge into a “multiculture”, one that limits and restricts one, particular culture from being intimated with the identity of a nation. None of these can be central to the nation, each of them must be regarded as different avenues of human expression, equally valuable and valid amongst one another. Further, the option for religious life will be similar, in that religions in a pluralistic society or nation are various avenues leading to the same end but through different means (Catholic, Muslim, Hindu) perhaps more suitable to personal taste and preference. In such a society, no single culture can be central or primary. No common culture can persist throughout as the dominant means of human expression; this would defeat the very nature and purpose of a diverse society.

For this reason, a diverse society or nation is grounded in the philosophical implications that 1) the human person is unique – because there is no absolute commonality or understanding that extends to each and everyone one; more concisely put, human beings exude difference, and those differences must be respected and 2) that the human person is radically autonomous – because he is an agent that self-determines and self-creates, i.e. it is through his own freedom and willpower that he becomes and creates an identity for himself, like selecting his own gender, sexual orientation, who his family is and is not, what his nationality is and to what extent (and so descriptive terms like “journey”, “self-discovery”, and “experience” are used to illuminate the individuals personal history as a self-creating thing). Finally, 3) a society must exist to support this notion of the human person, and as such this diverse society, with no solid identity and no real sense of nationality, comes to be in order to nurture the differences and diverse features of all people and ideals so that each and every self-creating, autonomous person can self-create and choose who and what they wish to be with no constraints from any common religious facet, a common national identity, a common culture, or a common understanding of the human person (all rooted in a group of people’s history and culture).

As a diverse society,  America has no common or central identity amongst its people; rather, its citizens express a myriad of different identities, even conflicting ones, and so “American” means nothing really, except an empty and hollow term employed by people who use it to describe whatever they wish it to mean.

At this juncture, I want to ask the question once again to any Conservative that may be reading: What is it that you conserve? Is it freedom? The American dream? The Constitution? How about the Christian faith? One thing is for certain today – Conservatives will not say they are in defense of the culture as it stands. In fact, I would go as far as saying it is impossible to conserve something like “culture” in a nation or society that is of the diverse kind. Regardless, there must be something that the Conservative is trying to keep.

America used to be a nation with a common culture – in fact, this common culture was protected and herald by America’s leaders – and immigrants were expected to assimilate into this culture. What do I mean by this? A culture is a way of life related to a group of people. It admits of things like a common language, ways of expressing emotion, ways in which people meet and greet (like shaking hands); there is a common or predominant religion, there is a prevailing view of the human person and what he is and how he ought to be treated; that human persons are thinking, rational creatures that have the power to choose and change things according to reasonable conclusions. There are ideas of male and female (“rugged, strong” and “classy and supportive”, respectively), and how those two genders relate. Of course, this yields particular views on how families should be structured. There are views of government . And there are traditions – like sports and games, like banquets, holidays, shooting guns, and drinking beer. In this sense, there was a homogeneity to it and we expected those that immigrated to assimilate and therefore become a part of it. America was something, not a nothing waiting and ready to be molded by anyone and everyone.  Once upon a time, a nation was related to the people that cultivated and ushered her into life. This idea can no longer be appreciated, at least for white, European-American people. Of course, Hispanic people can appreciate their heritage and national identities, and Asian people can appreciate theirs; in fact, to do otherwise would seem strange. People would curiously ask them “Are you not proud to be Asian? Are you not proud to be Hispanic? Have white people made you feel bad?” But if a white persons suggests they are proud to be white, there is a danger in this; immediately people feel uneasy and suspicious.

Once again, what do you as a Conservative wish to conserve? Below is my proposal, but first let me deal with what the Conservative does not and should not primarily be concerned with conserving. A Conservative does not conserve the Christian faith (that is, this is not his purpose as a Conservative); he Conserves the culture which has nurtured, advanced, and defended it:

The Christian faith is not the sole object of preservation for the Conservative. Christianity is but one facet of a larger culture. Christ himself said: “Render to Caesar what is Caesars…” the implication being that there is a real difference between what Christ was doing and what political men were doing. Many Jews expected a war-like Messiah, with political conquest in mind, so they were surprised to see a humble servant that concentrated his efforts on sin and the “narrow way”into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Gospel message is the story of God’s conquest over sin and His gift of salvation; it does not delineate methods of political and social order nor does it provide a serious blue print for a structural government or social order. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Scripture understands this. But God has given men human reason, along with the natural law, and the freedom as well, to design a way of life that is reasonable, pragmatic and consistent with the good. Christianity may be a component of this way of life, but it cannot be the entirety, and while it may be argued that it is the single most important aspect of the culture, to suggest it is the only thing the conservative must preserve only implies a serious immaturity on this persons part. Should we not also preserve our philosophical attitudes? Societal roles? Technology? Western Medicine? Forms of literature? Music and art? Foods? Dances and other traditions? Or do those mean nothing so long as we remain a “Christian nation”? If we remove these things from our identity,  if we remove common culture, leaving Christianity as the only quality, “American” means nothing – because anyone, American or not, can be a Christian. Thus, we return to the same starting spot. What does it mean to be “American”? What do you wish to conserve?

It should also be noted that this sort of view also opens the door to the notion of a “universal nation”, one that belongs to everyone and anyone (in a cultural sense), unified under the love and acceptance of Christ. Why? Because each person is viewed in terms of their “heart” alone – that is, there expressive love for Christ. Forget anything else. Espousing such a view will surely bring the utter destruction of a nation’s identity, and one easily sees why people scream for us to open the boarders in the “name of Christ”, to permit gay marriage out of a Christian love, and to turn a blind eye to every form of behavior in the name of “Christian tolerance” (“Christ said not to judge others”). It is not a surprise to see many Christians so entirely silent as they view their own self inflictions. They believed the conservative was merely a steward of Christianity and nothing else, and in such a belief they ignored the foreign invasivness that has thwarted any other form of identity America may have had, and along with it comes the pressure for Christianity to “love” and “accept” everyone’s ways of life. But what did they think would happen? And now our “Conservative” friends, really social moderates, are busy fighting off the monster they’ve created, confused about who and what they wish to be.

We cannot be Conservatives by virtue of conserving the Christian tradition alone. It simply brings about disastrous consequences. But what about the constitution, freedom, the “American dream”, and things like these ? First of all, these are also aspects of a larger culture or way of life;  this way of life is a historical way of approaching reality by a particular group of people – European people. Democracy, a particular view of freedom, the constitution, the “American dream”, all these things mean nothing without the culture that has informed them and nurtured them into existence. Secondly, many of these things are preserved and protected by Liberals (like freedom and the “American dream”). If preserving these things is the nature of a Conservative, then a Liberal is a Conservative – an absurd conclusion. We are not conserving aspects of something; we are Conservatives because we conserve the whole of something. This is primarily the problem with many conservatives today, who complain non-stop about aspects of the culture, like the changes in marriage, in family, in religion, in education, etc. What they fail to realize is these are aspects of a whole culture. That is what needs defending. Where do these Conservatives think these ideals that are  supposedly “under attack” come from? What does it mean to say the “traditional view of marriage”, the “traditional view of family”, if you are not willing to talk about the Tradition itself that these have come from?

But it is no surprise why people, particularly white people, do no discuss the traditions and culture of their own people – their identity has been attacked and poisoned. In fact, on a whole, people – even a large group of whites – do not want to have an identity. They feel having an identity is bad. A lot of them will say they are a “boring” people, their history is wrought with violence, and they are an imperialistic people that hurt others. It’s hard to identify with this when this is what you are taught to believe about yourself. Why should they have an identity? In order to create a “diverse society”, discussed above, a group of people, that have a historical connection to a nation’s existence and identity, must be stripped of their identity in order to neutralize the nation’s identity and empty it of any real meaning. Thus, many people can come and be whatever they wish to be with no common culture or way of life that prevails in such a nation.

This culture, this way of life, with many of the traditions, with all the holidays, many customs, and with many discoveries came with the Europeans to America, and our way of thinking, writing, and living was etched into the document we call the Constitution. This is a historic fact. You simply cannot separate the two. To say that America’s culture is formally “nothing”  – a kind of nihilism – belonging to anyone and everyone is not historically accurate and is compatible with the multicultural agenda that will ultimately lead to the downfall of unified nations and their identity. We must stop this self destruction. Imagine who other nations will appeal to when their countries nationality is being ravaged by multiculturalism, by violent ideologies like ISIS, who will they call upon when their economy has tanked, when “America” is no longer “America”. Of course, all people understand the American way of life, with principals of helping those in need and lending a hand to our neighbors globally and locally, which is what makes it easy for other nations to seek out our help. One day this will be lost in the melting pot that is now American society.

I cannot think of anything more substantial to preserve than a common culture correlated to and historically intimated with a particular group of people who ushered in a nation as great as America. To suggest that the conservative should not be speaking in such a way for fear of offending others means that they have been deeply affected by the progressive agenda and they are clearly lost to a reasonable way of thinking in this particular regard. To suggest anything less than this needs conserving will undoubtedly bring about further catastrophe to a nation already wounded by the Liberal agenda and narrative.

And what is that common culture? It is the historic culture of the European people preserved and developed by them during a rich history of advancement and achievement. The mistakes made by our people should not be so burdensome that we do not share the same right to enjoy our heritage as other people do – this is simply not fair. It is not fair to speak of “white America” only when it its convenient for non-whites to characterize white people and heritage as “demonic” and “evil”. How then should we go about restoring our pride and love for a common culture?

Firstly, white people must deal with the psychological damage dealt to them by the institutions of this nation. White people are a shamed people as white people and are made to appear as inherently racist. In so doing, all it takes is that very word – “racist” – to silence them any time an instance of pride for their history or culture rears its ugly head. We must constantly remind ourselves of the many goods done by our people and we should also go on learning from the mistakes our forefathers made – but there must exist a balance between these. Second, we must recognize that terms like “racist”, “bigot”, “Islamaphobe”, “Homophobe”, are too overused to mean much of anything; rather, they are used as devices of thought control that “put people in line”. They are “semantic bludgeoning devices” to make white people feel bad for thinking in ways that may suggest there is and should be a common culture and national identity with America, and that this culture can inform others on how they ought to live their life. We must constantly ask others who use these terms against us to define them immediately. When they cannot because they have no idea what they mean, they will learn they are merely using the terms as “insults” rather than genuine critiques of peoples behavior. Third, we must challenge the notions of multiculturalism. If I tell you that Japanese people have a common culture and are a people who are directly related to their nations existence and identity – that these two go hand in hand – everybody is fine with that. But if I say the same about white, European people with the identity of America and her origin, people become offended and frustrated. If I say white people go into other lands and impose their way of life onto others, people say “Yeah! Freakin’ Americans are control freaks!” But when I tell you the same thing is happening to America by other groups of people, people say “Yeah, it enriches our land and enlightens our way of life in a deeper, more meaningful way.” Whence the double standard? There is nothing wrong – or racist, or intolerant, or bigoted – about a nation wishing to preserve a historic culture and make it common amongst her citizens, regardless of where they are from. I simply cannot understand why it is okay to say that other nations possess historically intimate ties between that nation’s identity and a particular group of people, but white people are absolutely prohibited from saying this about America and her history. It is simply a double standard we should not tolerate!

As Conservatives, we are not suggesting that America be a white only nation; rather, we ask our fellow human beings, of any color, and any foreign land, to recognize the culture of European men as the driving force behind this nation’s success.  While you are free to worship a God different from our own, and while you are free to disagree with our way of life, you are not free to push upon us your way of life in this nation as an equally valid and valuable cultural institution. We respect that you are human and that you are able to choose for yourself what you wish to think and believe, but by coming here you have implied that our way of life is appealing and beneficial to you. To spit on it, to demand alterations to it, and to neglect its importance while reaping benefits from it is disrespectful to us as a nation and people. If we permit the equality of all cultural perspectives on a national platform, we are inviting in the dangers of a diverse society, which divides more than unifies, and we are saying that our way of life, which has carried us as a people for centuries, is no better than anyone else (essentially, we are welcoming the possibility of it’s extinction) and we cannot do that. Therefore, as Conservatives we ask you to respect the fact that the culture of this nation belongs to the European people, that have cultivated what is known as “Western Civilization, but can and should be enjoyed by all people equally, and if you do not wish to enjoy it, at the very least recognize it as correlated to the American identity. If you wish to leave you private life different, then do so as long as it is in accordance with our laws; however, we cannot and will not allow your way of life an equal precedence with our own. If you are apprehensive about this last statement – that the culture belongs to white, European people – then I ask you 1) t0 re-take history and 2) to think about a child and the relationship with her parents. While her parents nurture and direct her into maturity, other people will surely have an impact and place in her life; however, simply because others have an impact and place in that child’s life does not mean those people are equally a parent of that child. The child still belongs to her parents – that is, there is an intimate relation between her and them and the child has an existential bond to them. In the same way, a nation has an existential and historical bond to a particular group of people, and a nation’s identity is precisely the culture this group of people give to it. Likewise, while others have an impact and place in American culture it does not follow that it equally belongs to everyone of them in every way.  Yes, every person of any color can participate in American culture – but it does not belong to every group of people equally. We have to move away from this line of thinking. A nation has a historically intimate relationship to a particular group of people. If we suggest otherwise, we are acting outside reason and historical fact.

Again, I can not stress this clearly enough: nobody is suggesting that America be defined exclusively in terms of “white people”, i.e. America must be a white only society, nor does it mean other people groups are not allowed to live here and enjoy the benefits of our way of life, nor does it mean as white people we are some how “better than you” because of this. It simply means our way of life is historically united to the origin of this country, and that we have an existential tie and relation to this nation and her identity (just as Jews have a similar relation to Israel). We have to stop saying this is wrong for white people to think, and non-whites have to stop with the systematic guilt-tripping of whites for thinking like this.

As to the Conservatives, if you are not willing to commit to this, then what are you Conserving? If you cannot defend the very vessel that carries the nation’s identity – what makes her great – and what has nurtured the many great traditions and customs each of you enjoy every day,  then it is hard to imagine that you are a genuine Conservative.

*NB: I have not suggested that people who are a different color than white are less deserving, less human, less of anything. If you criticize me for being racist, bigoted, or intolerant you’re comments will be deleted. I will no longer tolerate people using these terms without a proper definition. It is a childish way to argue. I will also not tolerate being labeled a “white supremacist”. If such were the case, I would not think a nation of many different races was suitable; I simply ask that the many different people of many different colors be united under one, common culture and respect that the culture has an existential and historical relationship to a particular group of people (in this instance, the European people). Conservatives are people who are stewards of a particular way of life in any nation; they are not racists. They simply wish to Conserve the traditions, customs, and mannerisms that have given them an identity and allegedly made their country strong and prosperous. There is nothing morally wrong or unfair about this.