| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Fjordman : The Great Conversation |
| 2007-05-21 |
| From the desk of Fjordman One of the things I love about the Internet is that I get instant, online feedback on everything I write, from people in the United States to Australia and India. Quite frequently, this brings me to reassess what I have initially written, either by adding new perspectives and ideas that I hadn’t thought of at first or by stating more clearly what I mean. This Great Conversation is why the most interesting debates are frequently found in the blogosphere today. I have received so many impulses through this process from so many different individuals that it is not just modesty if I say that many of my essays should be considered as group efforts, with me as editor rather than sole writer. A Finnish academic from the University of Helsinki read my essay about 21st century Communism, and was rather critical of my ideas, which she labelled “an incredible mixture of ideological, political and scientific ignorance and misunderstanding.” |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #4 "...they [academics and I take it liberals] tend to view cultures as equal and interchangeable, which means that they perceive it to be of little practical importance, with the very notable exception of Western culture, which is important to destroy. I have always wondered why there is this self-loathing and desire for cultural suicide mostly in liberal circles in the West--primarily in free countries. I guess they would prefer an Islamic dictated country, or a socialistic or communistic country? Or is that they just think they are smarter than and superior to everyone else? Dictators at heart? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-21 22:36 |
| #3 The theory that all people should be allowed to live where they want means that all places are equally inhabitable. Bullshit point one ! Who the hell wants to live in the Sahara or in Nepal or Greenland ? In fact, all places are different and there is a best place to live and a worst place to live. We Americans believe the best place is somewhere in America, yet instead of defending entry into America with our lives, we embrace an assinine belief that we welcome the poor, the tired, the unwashed from the corners of the world. Bullshit point two ! Wake fucking up, America and take control of your borders, your language, and your culture. Drop the soccer and go buy a baseball bat. Then when some jerkoff complains about the manger scene in the town park, I really don't like the idea of beating anyone for being different, but this shit has gone far enough, and we need some kind of social binding. As it stands, only a small part of our population have any idea about current affairs, and the majority think they can get the necessary information from the talking heads. Bullshit point three ! Talking heads have agendas; shit, the majority don't even know what an agenda is. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-05-21 19:37 |
| #2 If one believes, as I do, that some cultures are superior to others, one could argue that by settling in another country, you have indirectly admitted that this country has a superior culture and should thus be required to adjust yourself to this culture, i.e. to assimilate. Dangerous thinking in this Multicultural era. How dare Fjordman show such blatant disregard for the primacy of moral relativism? It is true that if you cannot define your enemy, your criticism is bound to be vague. But this is part of my point: I, and numerous others with at least average intelligence, have spent a considerable amount of time trying to analyze the doctrines of Multiculturalism. We have found this to be quite challenging, precisely because it is vague, incoherent and doesn’t have any clear philosophical foundation. Multiculturalism seems to be a curious mix of older, Enlightenment ideas such as Rousseau’s “noble savage” and later Marxist ideas, among other things. There are those who claim that it was never supposed to be logically consistent and that we shouldn’t look for any cohesive, rational arguments behind it because there are none. What little can be discerned from its ideas is sometimes quite disturbing, with elements of anti-Western hatred, totalitarian impulses and Utopian ideas involving large-scale social engineering. As with so many of the left's nebulous pet ideologies, they must be "felt" and cannot be subjected to the harsh rigors of critical analysis or mere reason. Multiculturalism is primarily championed in Western nations. It is highly unlikely, to say the least, that a person from Finland, Canada or the Netherlands would want, much less be allowed to, move to Pakistan or Iran and expect to get state support for “keeping their culture,” but the reverse happens every single day. In the 21st century, many of the least economically successful cultures on earth are in the midst of the largest population boom in human history. If they should be allowed to continue to export, indefinitely, parts of their unsustainable population growth to other nations and those who move should be allowed to keep their culture, “human rights” de facto amount to the unilateral eradication of Western culture. And that’s precisely why the anti-Western Left support it. They can permanently destroy the West, and they can claim to do this in the name of “tolerance and diversity.” With a deft and fatal set of combination punches, Fjordman lays bare the incredible hypocrisy of Muslim majority nations and their Multiculturalist facilitators. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-05-21 17:58 |
| #1 "There are so many ideas about Multiculturalism, and the author [Fjordman] treats them all as if they were one, without even referring to one coherent set of such ideas." This is not a valid criticism of Fjordman's essay but a rhetorical attempt to change the subject and amounts to 'begging the question'. 'Multiculturalism' is not a coherent set of ideas, just a mishmash of recycled Marxism/nihilism/transnational b.s./etc. I semi-agree with Fjordman's Finnish academic critic: Multiculturalism is “an incredible mixture of ideological, political and scientific ignorance and misunderstanding.” |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-05-21 11:35 |