Blair Repents Liberal Fuzzy Thinking

[Corlyss_D]

Has Blair seen the multi-culturalism light?

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 09/12/2006

The Prime Minister has long hinted that he harbours doubts about the ideology of multi-culturalism that has done so much to divide one British person from another. Yesterday, he finally expressed those doubts – plainly enough to infuriate both professional multi-culturalists in the public sector and the Muslim Association of Britain, which described his remarks as "alarming".

The most important feature of Tony Blair's speech was an admission for which we have waited far too long: that there is a connection between Islamic extremism and political correctness. Muslims who hate this country are nourished by the constant assertions that our nation's history is a catalogue of shame; indeed, many of them will have been taught this since their first history lessons in a British primary school. (It is, sadly, a common experience now for state-educated children to be instructed, at some stage, to write essays based on the assumption that they are slaves on a British plantation.)

Multi-culturalism portrays itself as a means of celebration: in fact, it is an invitation to all minorities to complain, loudly and persistently, about their victimhood. And, when this self-pitying worldview comes into contact with religious fanaticism, the results can be – literally – explosive. That is presumably what Mr Blair means when he says that the events of July 7 last year threw the whole concept of multi-cultural Britain "into sharp relief".
advertisement

The Prime Minister and his close colleagues are plainly fed up with the lumbering grievance-mongers of the race relations industry: in the fight between Ken Livingstone and Trevor Phillips, reforming head of the Commission for Racial Equality, they are cheering loudly for the latter. Good for them.

True, the ideology that Mr Blair now decries has been advanced chiefly by his own party. Given his readiness to apologise for ancient wrongs, it would perhaps have been appropriate to acknowledge this more recent mistake. Still, we are delighted that Mr Blair has come round to the view that this newspaper has always held, and that our countrymen have clung to through decades of official bullying and hectoring.

What, though, are these "British values" that Mr Blair wants everyone to accept? It will not do to cant about freedom, fairness and tolerance: admirable as they are, these virtues would serve equally well for Ecuador or Finland. British values, surely, are bound up in our institutions: common law, a sovereign parliament, habeas corpus, counties, army regiments: the very institutions that have often been traduced by this ministry. Perhaps Mr Blair might devote his final months to repairing some of this damage.
link

[Agnes Selby]

Perhaps it is a little too late.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Teresa B]

I find this a hard topic to sort out my own opinion about (so I just thought I would spew something anyway ).

In principle, "multi-culturalism" seems like a good idea, because if we could really --and I mean ALL of us on the blinkin' planet--be tolerant of other cultures, then we could "All Get Along," in the immortal words of Rodney King.

But this is not the case. To refer back to Sam Harris's recent book "The End of Faith" (I think that's the title) our Western PC religious tolerance has resulted in us "tolerating" the violent and malevolent ideas of Islamic fundamentalists, to our grave detriment. (In Harris's view, we cannot safely tolerate any religion-based societies not just Islamic ones--although he singles out Islamism as the worst offender.)

Humans are also, by evolutionary causes, xenophobic. Thus in order to actually carry out such a good idea as not hating/killing our slightly different neighbors, we have to truly use our reasoning abilities to suppress the natural urge to eliminate them before they do us in. We don't do this too well.

We in western societies have the Enlightenment thinkers behind us, and are lucky enough to have our societal philosophy created by people who were gutsy enough to make democracy work (at least somewhat!). But I don't know that our Founding Fathers ever said we could or should instill democracy and western values into Islamic nations.

"All men are created equal" might translate today as the idea that all human beings have an equal right to exist in peace without being oppressed, etc. Since we don't seem to have evolved enough rational thinking ability to get beyond prejudice, hate, power-hunger, fear and other negative emotions, we can't achieve this ideal by "tolerance" and "multi-culturalism."

So do we all just build bigger and better defense systems, or do we try to make friends with our enemies?

Teresa

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Teresa,

The problem is, THEY do not want to be friends with us!!!
Hence 9/11.

I agree, we should curb our missionary zeal in trying to introduce
our way of life, our Democratic thinking to people with different religious beliefs and a completely different understanding of life, but if their religious beliefs are based on hate and their own missionary zeal is to change the world to their own religious beliefs, the hand extended in friendship will not be clasped.

Kind regards,
Agnes.
----------------------

[Brendan]

I think one of the first things that can be done is change the emphasis for tolerance from the accepting society and onto the migrant and their communities. In Aussie terms, simply ramming the coastline in a boatload of illegals and demanding welfare is a bizarre way to approach immigration and social cohesion, as are the political deals done in marginal electorates in Sydney to keep the flow of dodgy migrants approved of by the Imam—who compares women to meat—going.

It isn’t up to us to conform to their way of life, customs and laws—rather the opposite. Each can be treated equally under the law—our law, not Sharia law—without prejudice, but special circumstances created for others (despite the viciously racist nature of many crimes in Sydney, if it happens to a white person it cannot be a hate-crime) to make them feel better merely feeds their sense of aggrieved entitlement.

But if we have no pride in our own society (largely because we are taught to despise it and its history and religion) the will to defend it or justify it doesn’t exist. Justify Christianity? Be proud of it’s history? Wasn’t that all just Inquisition and oppression? It was in the schools I went to. But a pornographic society which considers self-indulgence its highest achievement and aim to strive for has little claim to moral superiority anyway.

In the time of Solon and Cleisthenes, the fathers of their democracy, the Athenians did not believe that democracy meant licence, that freedom meant anarchy, that equality under the law meant freedom to say anything one wished, and that the highest happiness was the power to do what one wanted without hindrance: instead, by punishing men of that type, the state tried to make their citizens better.
Jaeger, Werner – Paideia – The Ideals of Greek Culture Volume III [Oxford 1943, 1971 p113]

[Ted]

Humans are also, by evolutionary causes, xenophobic

Let’s examine the genus Homo Sapiens and observe their history of Territorial/Adversarial/Violent/Murderous associations within the species
Notice that while these barbaric tendencies may have abated to a degree as the genus evolved, they non-the-less continue to threaten the actual survival of said type

So do we all just build bigger and better defense systems, or do we try to make friends with our enemies?

“If ya ask me we’re fighting the wrong gooks”

“Full Metal Jacket” (Stanley Kubrick)

[burnitdown]

The Prime Minister has long hinted that he harbours doubts about the ideology of multi-culturalism that has done so much to divide one British person from another.

Multi-culturalism portrays itself as a means of celebration: in fact, it is an invitation to all minorities to complain, loudly and persistently, about their victimhood.

Makes one wonder if anyone reads the Greeks anymore, or even Nietzsche or Spengler. One reason I sense a decline in the West is that it has become aphilosophical, associating belief in anything with a tendency toward fighting for it and thus being inconvenienced. This would be the "last man" and "nihilism" of Nietzsche. But, it ain't over yet, and one of the most potent corrective forces is culture including classical music and literature.

[Corlyss_D]

Since we don't seem to have evolved enough rational thinking ability to get beyond prejudice, hate, power-hunger, fear and other negative emotions, we can't achieve this ideal by "tolerance" and "multi-culturalism."

I put all my faith in material benefits from economic self-interest as manifested in trade. There has to be some basis for trust, and it ain't the dewy-eyed Kumbaya notion that we can promote the interests of the Other over that of the Self - that's why Communism as a philosophy was doomed from the start. Trade builds trust among disparate cultures thru mutual benefit.

So do we all just build bigger and better defense systems, or do we try to make friends with our enemies?

It's the perception that it is one or the other that makes modern liberals so dangerous. They want to show off their progressive ideology and aggressive compassion by opting for making friends at the expence of defending the nation because emphasizing defense seems so regressive. One cannot "make friends with" enemies from a position of weakness. That's our current problem with Iran - negotiations with them are pointless because in the current political environment, the US has no stick that make negotiations profitable or even necessary to the Iranians. Their interest in seeing the US out of Iraq is dwarfed by their interest in seeing the US twist slowly on the knife while at home the clueless Democrats and their propaganda arm, the MSM, incapacitate the administration on the world stage.

[Corlyss_D]

Makes one wonder if anyone reads the Greeks anymore, or even Nietzsche or Spengler.

I trust your question is really a bootless cry to heaven. Forget philosophy. Children today are not even poorly read in history of their own country, nevermind that of Europe. They are abysmally ignorant of most knowledge necessary to make a good citizen.

[Brendan]

Makes one wonder if anyone reads the Greeks anymore, or even Nietzsche or Spengler.

Given what Plato and particularly Demosthenes had to say abut cultural pluralism (see The Philippics), let alone St Paul in the Corinthian epistles, I think that classical education and teaching is deliberately avoided or distorted to suit the current political fashions of education.

A final irony? The very tools which today’s critics in the university use to dismantle Western culture and to deny the Greeks their progeny are themselves invariably Western. No postmodernist goes on the attack against the “elitist construction of science” without resorting to a rational argument based on evidence, data, illustration, and logic—the entire Greek manner of formal invective and philosophical refutation. To craft his clever sabbatical request or grant proposal, the deconstructionist Classicist does not quote God, footnote the president, insert the chairman’s sayings, claim a drug-inspired supernatural revelation, break into religious chants, hand out cassettes, begin dancing, or warn openly of mayhem to come for disbelievers. No multiculturalist thinks his academic freedom is an oppressive idea, her notion of a university separate from the church and government a burdensome notion, or their presentation of research and opinion in journals peer-reviewed and free from state censorship “hegemonic,” “patriarchal,” “sexist,” or “racist.”
Hanson, Victor Davis & Heath, John – Who Killed Homer? [Encounter 2001 p126]

[burnitdown]

I trust your question is really a bootless cry to heaven. Forget philosophy. Children today are not even poorly read in history of their own country, nevermind that of Europe. They are abysmally ignorant of most knowledge necessary to make a good citizen.

No disagreement there.

It doesn't mean I will stop fighting for its reversal.

I believe in my people, even as they slumber.

And, I'd tell anyone that the Greeks are a joy to read, even if they broach the taboo opinions (and what philosopher does not? once one has read the almighty Nietzsche, or the outright anti-Semitic Schopenhauer, it becomes clear that philosophy is a zone for all dangerous thoughts to be fully examined).

[Teresa B]

So do we all just build bigger and better defense systems, or do we try to make friends with our enemies?

It's the perception that it is one or the other that makes modern liberals so dangerous. They want to show off their progressive ideology and aggressive compassion by opting for making friends at the expence of defending the nation because emphasizing defense seems so regressive. One cannot "make friends with" enemies from a position of weakness. That's our current problem with Iran - negotiations with them are pointless because in the current political environment, the US has no stick that make negotiations profitable or even necessary to the Iranians. Their interest in seeing the US out of Iraq is dwarfed by their interest in seeing the US twist slowly on the knife while at home the clueless Democrats and their propaganda arm, the MSM, incapacitate the administration on the world stage.

What, me dangerous? I was speaking more or less rhetorically (probably out of a sense that we have no good choices), and not proposing that we actually have this "choice" as a real dichotomy. I am way beyond believing we can all sing Kumbaya. I hope the democrats would not utilize their influence to incapacitate the administration, but to promote bipartisanship (surely within the U.S. we might begin to "unite rather than divide") and real debate.

The world looks on the U.S. as weak, and this is untenable as far as negotiating, I completely agree. As I said in my first post, I go with the idea that we can no longer "tolerate" the beliefs of others if those others are out to eliminate us.

Teresa