Multi-Culturalism In Action
Nazism was a form of “Identity Politics” where one’s group membership was seen as the force that defined one’s fundamental way of thinking. Robert W. Tracinski, points out that this idea is alive and well … but with a twist:
Update: I forgot to plug my own work. What hope is there for France if it is actually illegal to be critical of Islam or Muslims? How can they even debate rationally with such a constraint?
“Europe never learned the real lesson of the evils of Nazism. Rather than reject the deepest premises of the Nazis, they have inverted them into a new form, so that Europe no longer seeks to liquidate its racial minorities—but instead empowers those minorities to carry out the self-liquidation of Europe.”Bruce S. Thornton, in the New Individualist, has an excellent article on multiculturalism.
“Multiculturalism is a program for self-imposed dhimmitude. … It is in the streets of the Parisian suburbs that one can now see the ultimate effects of Multiculturalism—and sense a premonition of the dark and murderous future that lays ahead for Europe.”
Update: I forgot to plug my own work. What hope is there for France if it is actually illegal to be critical of Islam or Muslims? How can they even debate rationally with such a constraint?
posted by Jason Pappas at 8:18 AM
8 Comments:
Kopel makes many good points. Post Modernism is the ultimate problem on a fundamental level. A good and clear introduction of Post Modernism and its history is Stephen Hicks’ brief 200-page book “Explaining Postmodernism.” Here’s a review. In the latter half of my article, I also review the book.
This, latest form of skepticism and relativism, is infecting the population. However, it is blatantly dishonest as Hicks points out. Soon after they deny the existence of knowledge (including moral knowledge) they have no problem making specific moral pronouncements with intense hysterics about America being evil. It seems that the ploy of skepticism is intended to disarm us while they blatantly spew their dogma and hate. Hicks is good at exposing the contradiction and motivations of the Postmodernists.
This is definitely an important topic requiring more attention. Where else on the web are people talking about this?
This is definitely an important topic requiring more attention. Where else on the web are people talking about this?
I think that many are brainwashed and won't hear reality. Our educational system has done an excellent job or innoculating students on this part of history. And that innoculation has been going on for about 40 years.
I remember when multi-culturalism meant something very different from what it means today. At first, the term meant "observe and learn differences." But now the term means "embrace all values systems as valid ones and never be judgmental." In other words, moral and cultural relativism has arrived and has become a dominant philosophy.
We are indeed in the Post-Modern Age. Over at 6th Column, as you know, are several articles about this serious matter.
Jason, once again a five star commentary. I salute you, sir.
Mustang
Jason
Have you read Naipul ? He defines Islam as a colonial pathology. All this ranting and raving about the Crusades from a people well practised in mayhem is PC BS
Brittingham’s article on Rousseau’s influence was an excellent summary and brings several thoughts to mind.
The Post-Modern relativists and the Deconstructionists are essentially present day equivalents of the Sophists of Ancient Greece. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle argued that the Sophists, as subjectivists, are wrong -- knowledge in the ethical realm is indeed possible. By refuting the Sophists, these three giants set the course of Western Civilization. Thus, post-Modernists aren’t actually new, but a rebirth of an old discredited phenomenon -- except they are far worse than the original Sophists. The Ancient Sophists were innocent babes compare with today’s Sophists. Prior to Aristotle, they had some excuse. Before the power of knowledge, exemplified in material well-being and the dignity of living in a free society, one might have grounds for doubting the efficacy of the human mind and perhaps be cynical of human nature. Today’s nihilists have seen “the promise land” and they hate it with a passion.
As I was reading Brittingham’s description of the anti-mind, anti-reality ideas of today’s intellectuals, there was a feeling of deja vu. The descriptions reminded me of passages of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I remember reading these passages decades ago and thinking that her characters were blatant examples only found in fiction, for dramatic purposes. I was obviously wrong! I’m doubt Mr. Brittinham was thinking of that prophetic novel of fifty years ago.
I find it interesting that Mr. Brittingham didn’t mention Rousseau’s influence on Immanuel Kant. Hicks argues that Kant opened the door for subjectivism. However, this might not aid Mr. Brittingham’s argument since Kant was a devout Christian whose influence on post-Modern thought might embarrass Mr. Brittingham. Brittingham argues that “Christianity looked upon the enormous bloodshed it had caused and, in exhaustion, was reformed …” He states that post-modern secularism has no such limit. But he ignores Classical rationalism, the third alternative, which holds balance and reason as central elements. He ignores the Classical influence on the Renaissance and Enlightenment – and on religion itself as is clear in his introduction. Here he uses the Enlightenment wording “laws of nature and of nature's God” that allows modern Christians to see natural law known by reason to be in harmony with God known by faith. Something that Aquinas argued.
Still, it’s a great summary of Rousseau’s legacy and effect on post-Modern thought.
Kant is interesting. He wasn’t an explicit advocate of subjectivism in the most important sense, that of putting feelings before the evidence of the senses, nor of reducing sense experience to arbitrary individual constructions. However, he proclaimed the answer to epistemological problems lies in what his self-promoting declaration called his Copernican Revolution. Prior philosophers from the Greeks to his contemporaries believed the aim was to understand how knowledge is of reality. For Kant, not reaching reality wasn’t a problem -- it was part of the answer. The process of perceiving, because of its nature, inherently adds or colors knowledge but to such an extent that you can’t know what reality really is. He still claimed certainty for the process (if I remember correctly.)
While his intention was not subjectivism, he removed the anchor from reality; he relieved his successors of the demands that reality be the object of knowledge. That’s the best I can do given Kant’s multiple statements that make it hard to pin him down for refutation or even agreement. Some would actually describe all philosophy since Kant as post-Kantian. His influence is that great; philosophy after Kant is totally colored by his influence. Consequently, post-Modernism is something only possible in a post-Kantian world.
Stephen Hicks is a philosophy professor and he explains the point, in his book, better than I just did. I’m sure my formulation leaves inaccuracies -- I'm a bit rusty -- but I believe it is in the ball park. I hope that helps. Perhaps other lurking out there can help out. Cubed?
COULD MUSLIM-LED RIOTING HAPPEN IN THE U.S.?
By Salam Al-Marayati
Chicago Tribune, 11/11/05
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0511110350nov11,1,4394180.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
THIS IS A GOOD ARTICLE THAT SHOWS THAT MOST MUSLIM AMERICANS CONTRARY TO WHAT JASON AND CAROLINE WANT YOU THINK, DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE AN ISLAMIC STATE IN AMERICA AND BELIEVE IN SEPERATION B/W CHURCH AND STATE. IT IS BY THE HEAD OF MPAC(MUSLIM PUBLIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL)
Abdullah, what you say about American Muslims, if true, is a sociological statement – not a statement about the religion. American Muslims don’t define Islam. For that you must go to the Koran, Hadith, and Sira.
What you say about a prominent person’s respect for Islam just shows how people can be wrong. During the same time in history, many prominent people were praising Communism and Stalin. In the 1920s and 1930s many people said silly things. Most were ignorant or believed the propaganda.
<< Home