Selwyn Duke
The Brit PM's limp-wristed attack on multiculturalism
By Selwyn Duke
A sad testimonial as to the effete state of Western culture is that even ineffectual, feminized defenses of it are applauded as brave. Case in point: British Prime Minister David Cameron has made news by giving a speech in which he said that "state multiculturalism" has failed. And while he earned three spots on Drudge and a "hear, hear!" from mainstream conservatives, the truth is that whether or not his words are too late, they are certainly too little.
They're also just words.
Let's start by saying that Cameron, like all Western leaders, is a creature of the age who is either unwilling or unable to address the real problem: immigration itself. For it is not just multiculturalism that has failed but also the importation of multiple unassimilable cultures.
The reality is that it isn't borders, mountains, rivers, trees, rocks or animals that make a nation, but people. Australia, the US, Canada and Taiwan only became those nations because of the migration of Europeans to the first three and Chinese to the last; they were far different when occupied by only Indians or aborigines (as to this, you can ask the Indians and aborigines about the effects of immigration). Likewise, as I wrote in 2007, "[R]eplace our population with a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer have a Western civilization, you no longer have America. You have Mexico North or Iran West."
The above was quoted a day later in Congress by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who said that I had "inveighed" against immigration. And I inveigh against it still. As I also wrote in the 2007 piece:
People such as Congressman Conyers dismiss such concerns; they liken the immigration of today to that of yesteryear and claim that since the latter posed no problems (not really true), the former won't, either. But they ignore the most significant difference between the two: Yesterday's immigrants — no matter their tongue — generally had a Judeo-Christian foundation. Those in question here have an Islamic one.
This may seem like small potatoes to secularists such as Conyers and Cameron, but this is because they lack depth. They don't understand that man does not live on bread alone. The deepest realm is the philosophical/spiritual, and, as an ancient Chinese saying goes, "It is easier to change the height of a mountain or the flow of a river than the nature of a man." It's nice to talk, as Cameron has done, about how Muslim immigrants must embrace British values. But what if those values happen to contradict the Sharia sense of virtue? It is completely unrealistic to think that newcomers will shed what lies at the core of their being because they have changed location. And it's especially fruitless to ask people to replace their conception of virtue with your mere "values." And, yes, the difference between the two is profound.
As to this, what are British "values"? White wigs in court and tea time? Monty Python? Before you get offended, know that I could ask like questions about all our dying Western cultures. Once we lost our faith and became post-Christian, we lost our soul. We hollowed ourselves out. Sure, we can talk about "human rights," but we have in reality — as Barack Obama has in speeches — removed the basis for those rights: the Creator. Thus, even if Muslims as a group could be shaken from Sharia (which they cannot), we'd be asking them to trade a civilization about something for a civilization about nothing. Good luck with that. Man does not live on plum pudding alone.
By the way, Cameron himself has recognized the current unattractiveness of British culture, writing in this piece:
Of course, within the context of the usual politically correct Western commentary, Cameron's statements are a big improvement. But, again, it just illustrates how low we've sunk. Sure, maybe he knows a bit better. Perhaps, understanding that "Politics is the art of the possible," he's just pushing the envelope as far as expediency allows. At the end of the day, though, Cameron's approach is much as if Charles Martel had taken nothing but lawyers, self-help books and treaties to the Battle of Tours.
© Selwyn Duke
February 9, 2011
A sad testimonial as to the effete state of Western culture is that even ineffectual, feminized defenses of it are applauded as brave. Case in point: British Prime Minister David Cameron has made news by giving a speech in which he said that "state multiculturalism" has failed. And while he earned three spots on Drudge and a "hear, hear!" from mainstream conservatives, the truth is that whether or not his words are too late, they are certainly too little.
They're also just words.
Let's start by saying that Cameron, like all Western leaders, is a creature of the age who is either unwilling or unable to address the real problem: immigration itself. For it is not just multiculturalism that has failed but also the importation of multiple unassimilable cultures.
The reality is that it isn't borders, mountains, rivers, trees, rocks or animals that make a nation, but people. Australia, the US, Canada and Taiwan only became those nations because of the migration of Europeans to the first three and Chinese to the last; they were far different when occupied by only Indians or aborigines (as to this, you can ask the Indians and aborigines about the effects of immigration). Likewise, as I wrote in 2007, "[R]eplace our population with a Mexican or Moslem one and you no longer have a Western civilization, you no longer have America. You have Mexico North or Iran West."
The above was quoted a day later in Congress by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who said that I had "inveighed" against immigration. And I inveigh against it still. As I also wrote in the 2007 piece:
-
Do you want to know why we have Moslem prayers broadcast five times daily in Hamtramck, Michigan; Moslem foot baths installed in the Kansas City Airport; "Islamic Immersion" classes in a California school district; Moslems who are planning jihad against us on our own shores; and Moslems who demand an Arabic public school in NYC and Moslem dormitories at colleges? Legal immigration. Why do we have illegal immigrants brazen enough to protest in the streets and demand the rights of citizens? Legal immigration. Why do you have to press buttons to conduct business in the language of the land and why are government documents printed in foreign ones? Legal immigration. Why have we seen Mexicans in our streets burning our flag and wielding signs stating "Gringo Go Home"? Legal immigration.
People such as Congressman Conyers dismiss such concerns; they liken the immigration of today to that of yesteryear and claim that since the latter posed no problems (not really true), the former won't, either. But they ignore the most significant difference between the two: Yesterday's immigrants — no matter their tongue — generally had a Judeo-Christian foundation. Those in question here have an Islamic one.
This may seem like small potatoes to secularists such as Conyers and Cameron, but this is because they lack depth. They don't understand that man does not live on bread alone. The deepest realm is the philosophical/spiritual, and, as an ancient Chinese saying goes, "It is easier to change the height of a mountain or the flow of a river than the nature of a man." It's nice to talk, as Cameron has done, about how Muslim immigrants must embrace British values. But what if those values happen to contradict the Sharia sense of virtue? It is completely unrealistic to think that newcomers will shed what lies at the core of their being because they have changed location. And it's especially fruitless to ask people to replace their conception of virtue with your mere "values." And, yes, the difference between the two is profound.
As to this, what are British "values"? White wigs in court and tea time? Monty Python? Before you get offended, know that I could ask like questions about all our dying Western cultures. Once we lost our faith and became post-Christian, we lost our soul. We hollowed ourselves out. Sure, we can talk about "human rights," but we have in reality — as Barack Obama has in speeches — removed the basis for those rights: the Creator. Thus, even if Muslims as a group could be shaken from Sharia (which they cannot), we'd be asking them to trade a civilization about something for a civilization about nothing. Good luck with that. Man does not live on plum pudding alone.
By the way, Cameron himself has recognized the current unattractiveness of British culture, writing in this piece:
-
[T]he third step in promoting integration is to ensure there's something worth integrating into. "To make men love their country," said Edmund Burke, "their country ought to be lovable". ...Here the picture is bleak: family breakdown, drugs, crime and incivility are part of the normal experience of modern Britain. Many British Asians see a society that hardly inspires them to integrate. ...it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.
Of course, within the context of the usual politically correct Western commentary, Cameron's statements are a big improvement. But, again, it just illustrates how low we've sunk. Sure, maybe he knows a bit better. Perhaps, understanding that "Politics is the art of the possible," he's just pushing the envelope as far as expediency allows. At the end of the day, though, Cameron's approach is much as if Charles Martel had taken nothing but lawyers, self-help books and treaties to the Battle of Tours.
© Selwyn Duke
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
