Will Multiculturalism End Europe? By: Pat Buchanan

[bobbyw24]

Multiculturalism has "totally failed," says German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "State multiculturalism has had disastrous results," says Britain's David Cameron.

Is multiculturalism a failure in France? "My answer is clearly yes, it is a failure," says President Nicolas Sarkozy. Ex-Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has declared multiculturalism a failure in Spain, saying it divides and debilitates Western societies.

How does a liberal, permissive society that celebrates diversity impose its values on a militant immigrant minority that rejects them? Answer: It doesn't. All the rest is chatter.

This is what James Burnham meant when he wrote that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/article/will-multiculturalism-end-europe

[ClayTrainor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYB0VW5x8fI

[Yieu]

What's wrong with people choosing what culture they want to follow, rather than trying to be exactly like everyone else?

[bobbyw24]

What's wrong with people choosing what culture they want to follow, rather than trying to be exactly like everyone else?

The problem is when the government forces you to follow any culture or any mix thereof

[Yieu]

The problem is when the government forces you to follow any culture or any mix thereof

Certainly, the use of force is a problem. But the word "multiculturalism" makes it sound like someone wanting to prevent me from following the religion I wish to follow, or from liking the sort of culture that I prefer, which is not libertarian, and would also be the use of force. If I was not allowed to change my religion when I learned new information, that would not be liberty.

[ClayTrainor]

The problem is when the government forces you to follow any culture or any mix thereof

So ultimately, the state is the problem, not multi-culturalism itself?

I have mixed feelings when i hear the term multi-culturualism is bad. On the one hand, I have friends from many different cultures, and they are great people. I do have some philosophical problems with the idea of culture in general, but i have no problem with people freely making a non-aggressive life choice that i disagree with.

On the other hand, some cultures do seem to promote aggression as central tenets to their culture, and that is a problem for any free society.

[Yieu]

On the other hand, some cultures do seem to promote aggression as central tenets to their culture, and that is a problem for any free society.

This is true, which is why I chose a culture/religion whose central tenet is the non-aggression principle, otherwise known as ahimsa in Sanskrit. Every aspect of my life is governed by the non-aggression principle, in a religious manner. It is really quite liberating, abstaining from the use of force in every way, under commandment from God.

[bobbyw24]

So ultimately, the state is the problem, not multi-culturalism itself?

I have mixed feelings when i hear the term multi-culturualism is bad. On the one hand, I have friends from many different cultures, and they are great people. I do have some philosophical problems with the idea of culture in general, but i have no problem with people freely making a non-aggressive life choice that i disagree with.

On the other hand, some cultures do seem to promote aggression as central tenets to their culture, and that is a problem for any free society.

Yes-the State is problem

[Yieu]

Yes-the State is problem

So then multiculturalism, taken as the meaning of an individual choosing the culture or religion which he wishes to follow rather than simply inheriting it from his parents, is not bad?

I wonder what FrankRep's opinion on this is.

[Southron]

Multi-culturalism is good way to change the politics of a nation quickly.

Europe is morally bankrupt. I hope they are practicing up on their Arabic.

[Yieu]

Multi-culturalism is good way to change the politics of a nation quickly.

Europe is morally bankrupt. I hope they are practicing up on their Arabic.

Morals come from religion. Do you mean to say Islam has no morals? Or did you mean Europe aside from the Muslim community?

[Southron]

Morals come from religion. Do you mean to say Islam has no morals? Or did you mean Europe aside from the Muslim community?

I mean Old Europe, or what was formerly Christian Europe. It seems these things go in cycles. Islam certainly has its own set of ethics. The more dominant (morally, intellectually, spiritually) culture will prevail.

[Yieu]

I mean Old Europe, or what was formerly Christian Europe. It seems these things go in cycles. Islam certainly has its own set of ethics. The more dominant (morally, intellectually, spiritually) culture will prevail.

Yeah, I can agree with that. A nation that has lost its religion could be replaced with another religion, as a lack of religion creates a need for it. Hopefully it will benefit the area.

[Pericles]

Different cultures are why there are different countries.

As a culture is partially defined as a common set of experience, values, and beliefs, multi-culti is only a transition phase to a new culture.

Is it a violation of the cherished NAP when the majority votes to require halal food in schools?

[Yieu]

Different cultures are why there are different countries.

As a culture is partially defined as a common set of experience, values, and beliefs, multi-culti is only a transition phase to a new culture.

Is it a violation of the cherished NAP when the majority votes to require halal food in schools?

Do you mean to say it is a bad thing to learn about cultures then determine you fit more into another? I did that, and have benefitted from it. The NAP is supported by my religion. Allowing food that is edible to more people (such as allowing sattvic vegetarian food for those who are religious) is not a bad thing. That would actually be in-tune with the NAP.

[erowe1]

What does it mean for there to be the end of a land mass?

[erowe1]

Different cultures gangs that benefit from different sets of laws are why there are different countries tax jurisdictions.


Fixed it.

[Pericles]

Do you mean to say it is a bad thing to learn about cultures then determine you fit more into another? I did that, and have benefitted from it. The NAP is supported by my religion. Allowing food that is edible to more people (such as allowing sattvic vegetarian food for those who are religious) is not a bad thing. That would actually be in-tune with the NAP.
No - it is a bad thing to relocate into another culture and then work to force the adopted culture to become more like the one you left.

When I lived in Germany, I had no desire to make Germany more like the US, same for living in Switzerland. If you change cultures, leave the old one behind - that was traditionally part of the "American" culture. That has been especially strong in Texas - it mattered not who you were or where you came from. What mattered was who you are and what you do.

[erowe1]

No - it is a bad thing to relocate into another culture and then work to force the adopted culture to become more like the one you left.

When I lived in Germany, I had no desire to make Germany more like the US, same for living in Switzerland. If you change cultures, leave the old one behind - that was traditionally part of the "American" culture. That has been especially strong in Texas - it mattered not who you were or where you came from. What mattered was who you are and what you do.

The converse also applies. No matter where you live, whether you moved there or grew up there, no matter who your neighbors are, and whether they just moved there or grew up there, you shouldn't work to force them to wear the same clothes as you, eat the same foods as you, or adopt any other aspects of your culture.

If my government starts dictating that I and my family need to conform to what it's definition of "American" culture is, that's a problem not to be supported or tolerated.

[Yieu]

The converse also applies. No matter where you live, whether you moved there or grew up there, no matter who your neighbors are, and whether they just moved there or grew up there, you shouldn't work to force them to wear the same clothes as you, eat the same foods as you, or adopt any other aspects of your culture.

If my government starts dictating that I and my family need to conform to what it's definition of "American" culture is, that's a problem not to be supported or tolerated.

+rep

[Pericles]

Q So, what did the Indians call America before we arrived?

A Ours.

[Southron]

Q So, what did the Indians call America before we arrived?

A Ours.

That's funny, because I was just thinking to myself how that multi-culturalism worked out for the Injuns.:)

Mass immigration has all sorts of consequences.

[bobbyw24]

Ludwig von Mises said:

"Community of language binds and difference of language separates persons and peoples."

[BlackTerrel]

Yes Pat is racist. Always has been. For the umpteenth time every time I mention it here.


Sarrazin argued that Germany's gastarbeiters, guest workers -- Turks, Kurds, Arabs -- are dumbing down the nation. While Germany's birth rate fell below replacement levels decades ago, these foreigners with less intelligence and much higher dropout, welfare and crime rates are rapidly replacing the declining German population.

If only white people had more kids. Unfortunately for Pat he is 97 years old and his time is coming to and end.

[daviddee]

...

[dannno]

Unfortunately for Pat he is 97 years old and his time is coming to and end.

He's younger than Ron Paul (still not likely that he will have anymore kids, though it is still technically possible)

I think Buchanan has a lot of good things to say, but I agree it sucks when he starts talking about other races like they are inferior.

[Zap!]

I heart Pat Buchanan. No one is cooler than a paleo-con, not even a libertarian.

[bobbyw24]

I think Buchanan has a lot of good things to say, but I agree it sucks when he starts talking about other races like they are inferior.

Agreed-totally irrelevant and divisive

[Freedom 4 all]

Muslims are WAAAAY down my list of concerns, and I still don't see them as any kind of threat, but I don't understand why so many militant Muslims who reject Western culture move to Western countries. Didn't they LEAVE their countries of origin because they suck ass?

[Jack Bauer]

Morals come from religion. Do you mean to say Islam has no morals? Or did you mean Europe aside from the Muslim community?

Not at all. Morals come from our evolutionary history.

[erowe1]

Not at all. Morals come from our evolutionary history.

On the contrary, morals come from neither religion nor evolution. Morals, like the laws of mathematics and logic, transcend humanity, and would still exist if every one of us were totally ignorant of them, or even if no people existed at all.

[Jack Bauer]

On the contrary, morals come from neither religion nor evolution. Morals, like the laws of mathematics and logic, transcend humanity, and would still exist if every one of us were totally ignorant of them, or even if no people existed at all.

Morals are entirely subjective unlike the laws of nature. So I don't think they transcend humanity.

What you consider moral may not be considered moral by someone else. However, the laws of nature are not subjective because they need to be validated through several factual observation and are only accepted as the norm after that rigorous process. Morality is not subjected to any factual observations and is largely subjective.

Dawkins on the source of morality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ

[erowe1]

Morals are entirely subjective unlike the laws of nature. So I don't think they transcend humanity.

I could also claim that natural laws are subjective, and I could respond to any attempt at proving that they're objective that the proof fails by observing that said proofs inevitably rely on human reasoning and senses, and by pretending to think those means are inherently subjective. I don't believe that, but if I wanted to pretend to, there wouldn't be a way around it.

The problem is, we all know that natural laws aren't subjective, and that human reason and senses have at least some degree of reliability. We know this not because we can prove it--we can't--but because we're made in God's image.

It's the same way with moral laws. People sometimes pretend they're subjective. But we all actually know they aren't. And even the people who try hard to pretend they are betray their innate knowledge that moral laws are transcendent whenever they judge any action as not merely either productive or counterproductive of some ends, but rather either right or wrong, which they all do without even noticing it all the time.

[Jack Bauer]

I could also claim that natural laws are subjective, and I could respond to any attempt at proving that they're objective that the proof fails by observing that said proofs inevitably rely on human reasoning and senses, and by pretending to think those means are inherently subjective. I don't believe that, but if I wanted to pretend to, there wouldn't be a way around it.

The problem is, we all know that natural laws aren't subjective, and that human reason and senses have at least some degree of reliability. We know this not because we can prove it--we can't--but because we're made in God's image.

It's the same way with moral laws. People sometimes pretend they're subjective. But we all actually know they aren't. And even the people who try hard to pretend they are betray their innate knowledge that moral laws are transcendent whenever they judge any action as not merely either productive or counterproductive of some ends, but rather either right or wrong, which they all do without even noticing it all the time.

You were doing fine till that point. After that you just lost all credibility.

How would you explain the vast difference in the standards of morality between different cultures - all of which more or less accept the same laws of nature?

[Seraphim]

In the words of Carlin "Aw here we fuckin' go again"


I could also claim that natural laws are subjective, and I could respond to any attempt at proving that they're objective that the proof fails by observing that said proofs inevitably rely on human reasoning and senses, and by pretending to think those means are inherently subjective. I don't believe that, but if I wanted to pretend to, there wouldn't be a way around it.

The problem is, we all know that natural laws aren't subjective, and that human reason and senses have at least some degree of reliability. We know this not because we can prove it--we can't--but because we're made in God's image.
It's the same way with moral laws. People sometimes pretend they're subjective. But we all actually know they aren't. And even the people who try hard to pretend they are betray their innate knowledge that moral laws are transcendent whenever they judge any action as not merely either productive or counterproductive of some ends, but rather either right or wrong, which they all do without even noticing it all the time.

[erowe1]

You were doing fine till that point. After that you just lost all credibility.

How would you explain the difference in the standards of morality between different cultures - all of which more or less accept the same laws of nature?

It's not too hard to explain why those differences exist. There are differences between individuals, so there inevitably will be between cultures too. We comprehend situations and how moral laws apply to them differently. But I think relativists have a bad habit of exaggerating the differences. If you spend much time studying the moral laws that have been inscripturated by all kinds of different groups across the globe and throughout history, the similarities are the thing that will strike you the most, not the differences. And what differences exist are often not in the deeper moral laws themselves, but in the ways of trying to make them work (such as whether to drive on the right side of the street or the left).

Where the problem really lies is with those who claim that differences between cultures prove that there are no transcendent moral laws for all of them. Because a person in such a position no longer admits the existence of some standard by which he can measure any of these differing cultures and say that one is right and the other wrong. Of a society that sacrifices children, or practices foot binding, or female circumcision, he can only say, "There are certain utilitarian disadvantages to those things. But that's just what that culture does. It's not wrong." when in truth, he knows that the societies that don't do those things are morally superior to those that do (at least with respect to those examples). He just doesn't dare admit that such things as "wrong" or "moral superiority" genuinely exist out there, because once he admits that, he knows he has to admit other uncomfortable things.

[BlackTerrel]

He's younger than Ron Paul (still not likely that he will have anymore kids, though it is still technically possible)

I think Buchanan has a lot of good things to say, but I agree it sucks when he starts talking about other races like they are inferior.

Is he really? I feel like he was 75 when I was 5.

Maybe he does. But half the articles I read from him are bitching about anything non-white. At some point you just lose credibility with me. Pat did a long time ago.

[Vessol]

Mixed Markets and Parasitism will end Europe, not immigrants or other cultures.

He is not giving enough credit to the destructive nature of the welfare state that cannot be indefinably supported.

[ibaghdadi]

Well quite frankly I find it quite telling that Europe, after destroying itself through two massive world wars followed by decades of socialism that made it go bankrupt, now turns around and blames its "demise" on those "dark skinned immigrants". Some people never learn.

If you don't want dark skinned people to flood into your country, perhaps you must admit it was a bad idea to send your armies all over the world building a huge multi-racial empire. You occupied these countries for centuries, so stop whining about some of these people coming to live in your neighborhood.

[Knightskye]

Centralization of power will end Europe. See: existence of European Union.

[BlackTerrel]

Mixed Markets and Parasitism will end Europe, not immigrants or other cultures.

He is not giving enough credit to the destructive nature of the welfare state that cannot be indefinably supported.

Yes but he cannot blame that on people darker than himself.