Saturday, November 12, 2005

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:
“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.”

“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.”
Bruce S. Thornton, in the New Individualist, has an excellent article on multiculturalism.

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?


Blogger Caroline said...

Jason - funny, but I posted a link to this Tracinski article at jihadwatch last night. I also commented that although Tracinski never uses the term "postmodernism", it is my understanding that that is what he is describing.
(incidentally, I stumbled across it via a link at Laurence Auster's site a couple days ago).

The article reminded me of something I had seen at National Review a while back and found fascinating:

Uncertain Uncertainty: Postmodernism Unravels

Most people are quite familiar with the term "multiculturalism" but may not be familiar with (what I take to be) it's intellectual, philosophical roots - namely "postmodernism". What is neat about the Kopel article is the way it explains how this movement is actually connected to Physics. I find it fascinating that when you look back on a particular historical epoch, it is easy to see in retrospect how the science of physics dovetails with the philosophy of the age and also with the historical events. It's all much harder to SEE when you're in the midst of it all. My understanding may be very crude indeed but it would seem that we are currently in the midst of the "postmodernist" Age - informed by the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty in physics, and resulting in what the average man on the street could identify as "multiculturalism" and which practically speaking (to be observed as the "historical" perspective from the vantage point of the future) explains how the west succumbs to the Great 21st Century Islamic Jihad, due to the logical consequence of its own intellectual ideas (Science plus Philosophy results in History).

11/12/05, 5:05 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

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?

11/13/05, 8:16 AM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

11/13/05, 12:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason, once again a five star commentary. I salute you, sir.


11/13/05, 1:13 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

Jason - sorry to post and run earlier. I read the link to your article on post-modernism. Very well written (is there anything you don't know about?!). I also read the Bruce Thornton link (I love that guy. I've followed all his articles because he obviously "gets it". He is a recovered lefty, FWIW).

I will be sure to go over and read info on post-modernism at 6th column, as AOW recommends.

I haven't seem much discussion about post-modernism in general on the blogs.Of course I had heard of the term and was vaguely familiar with all the "Deconstruction" stuff in campus English Departments, but frankly, I didn't really have a clue what they were talking about or any understanding whatsoever that those literary theorists were actually dangerous.

One day in the future, when my husband gets employed again (it's been going on 2 years now) - I will order the Hicks book as well as so many of the other books that have been recommended to me. In the meantime, the internet is my "poor man's library".

One article I did stumble across a while ago that more specifically traces the roots of post-modernism to Rousseau - as your article does - is this one:

The Cold War is Not Over: Europe and the Post-Modern Left

Obviously many of the intellectual roots of post-modernism stem from France. There's probably some justice in the fact that they will be the first westerners to reap the consequences but I also totally agree with your previous post about France. The west needs to stand together to defeat the jihad.

11/13/05, 5:28 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

Also - re your post re Islam's threat to freedom of speech - if people don't grasp this most central point, then we are truly lost. I know it was Diana West, at the end of one of her articles (I am not a good googler and my first efforts came up a bit short to locate the precise article), who commented that this is a threat that provides everyone with the opportunity to be a little hero of sorts. She's right. I know there are a lot of silent lurkers on blogs, especially on ones like jihadwatch - but I feel strongly that this is indeed the time for literally millions of people to do something small but heroic and speak out, put a comment on a blog anonymously even - just literally FLOOD public venues with some small statement that they understand what Islam's goals are and that they take a stance in defense of the west. If ordinary everyday people won't do that en masse, then it leaves exposed the very few people like yourself who courageously dare to do so. There is strength in numbers. Everyone who speaks out provides just a slight degree of cover and defense for those who make themselves the most exposed. It's relatively easy to go after a few but how does one go after literally millions who stand united? And also think how demoralizing it could potentially be to the enemy to see so many voices speaking out, even if they are largely anonymous. All of us have to speak out and make the enemy realize that it is facing an uphill battle against millions of foot soldiers.

11/13/05, 6:14 PM  
Blogger beakerkin said...


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

11/14/05, 2:24 AM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

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.

11/14/05, 4:09 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

Jason: "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."

Jason - it will take me several years to catch up with your grasp on the history of philosophy.

As I have indicated here in the past, my own attraction to eastern philosophy leaves me a little confused, primarily because eastern philosophy appears to me to be radically subjective in nature, implying to some extent that it's all "illusion", constucted by our own minds, as it were, to put it crudely. It's certainly an interesting idea, but it's hard for me to understand that being held up at gunpoint, raped and my family butchered before my eyes, is somehow an "illusion".

I don't expect you to actually address that issue, but I would like for you to clarify your comments re Immanual Kant.

You said : "Kant was a devout Christian whose influence on post-Modern thought might embarrass Mr. Brittingham."

That statement is quite vague in its meaning. Are you saying that Kant was an early post-modernist or are you saying the opposite?

Wasn't it Kant who talked about the categories of the mind, or the categories of the understanding, or whatever it was? It actually sounds like a precursor of Chomsky's theories on language.

But if he was a radical subjectivist, then what of his "categorical imperative" as a guide to moral action? I like that categorical imperative. It makes a great deal of rational sense to me. Does Kant adopt that moral imperative because it's the only moral/practical/rational solution to the subjectivism he's otherwise describing?

Sorry Jason. Don't mean to demand a free education from you but you have such an obvious facility with philosophy and it would certainly behoove us all to understand the larger intellectual framework of the historical events that are unfolding. I would appreciate it if you could clarify for me where Kant does fit into all this mess historically, if you feel so inclined and when you happen to have the time. I'm not in a hurry or anything. :-)

11/14/05, 7:01 PM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

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?

11/14/05, 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


By Salam Al-Marayati
Chicago Tribune, 11/11/05,1,4394180.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


11/15/05, 1:16 AM  
Blogger Jason Pappas said...

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.

11/15/05, 6:37 AM  
Blogger Caroline said...

Jason - That does in fact clarify things. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question.

Abdullah - I bet if you took a poll of Muslims in France 20 years ago you would have found no support for an Islamic state in France either. Things start to change when Muslims hit about 10% of the population and then their demands start. But then when your prophet endorses lying for the sake of spreading Islam, how can you expect infidels to trust what Muslims say? That's the whole point of an ethics grounded in truthfulness. Truthfulness forms the basis of trust between human beings. Islam throws that out the window so if the consequence is our distrust of your intentions, I would say you have Islam and your prophet to blame for that.

11/15/05, 7:07 AM  

<< Home