Multiculturalism destroys culture ( and civilisations?

) Politically correct fundamentalists have been trying to persuade us for years that the mixing of cultures results in their mutual "enrichment", to use a near compulsory bit of multicultural jargon. This idea is flatly contradicted by history and by common sense. Seven hundred years ago, the British Isles had at least four languages: French, Latin, AngloSaxon and Gaelic. As is entirely predictable, these four merged. They merged into present day English, or rather Anglo-Saxon predominated, with large numbers of words borrowed from the other languages. Latin, French and Gaelic on the British Isles were not "enriched": they were destroyed. It is obvious that adding a cultural item to a country will in the short term increase the diversity of its culture. For example add a word to a language and the language is "enriched". (Of course this assumes the new word is worthwhile addition many new words are not.) However the long term effect of additions to a culture are somewhat different. (And this is just one of several examples of multiculturalists failing to see long term.) Human memories and brains are limited. People cannot memorise an infinite number of words or an infinite number of anything else. In short, add a cultural item to a country, and sooner or later some other cultural item will be dropped. Worse still, as pointed out above, entire languages get destroyed. Planet Earth is losing one language per week (see "When Worldwide cultural destruction. As pointed out above, additions to a culture will not normally enrich the culture a vast amount in the long term. Moreover if each country is absorbing cultural items from abroad and discarding say one native cultural item for every 2 cultural items imported, then the World as a whole will steadily lose the bulk of its cultural heritage. This is just another way of saying we are moving towards a boring, pan-World mono-culture ! Some cultures are plain incompatible. A final reason for the cultural destruction that takes place when cultures merge is the plain incompatibility of some cultures. For example a culture which involves compulsory attendance at religious ceremonies cannot merge with a culture where attendance is voluntary without one or both cultures making compromises, that is, losing some of their original characteristics: attendance at religious ceremonies cannot be both compulsory and voluntary. A recent example of cultural destruction arising from this incompatibility is the effect of Islam on the UK. Christmas is no longer celebrated in some public institutions or places ostensibly for fear of offending Muslims, Hindus, etc. Though the real reason has more to do with white politically correct Brits trying to prove themselves holier than thou, than with any real offence caused to other religious groups. And the large influx of Mexicans into the southern U.S. has brought a truely wondrous cultural import: kidnapping is a favourite Mexican pastime,

Languages Die" by David Harrison). French restaurateurs feel threatened by McDonalds. About 99% of immigrants to the USA over the last two centuries or their descendants have lost about 99% of the "old country" culture they arrived with (recent immigrants apart). They now engage in English speaking, baseball watching US culture. You'd think the self-appointed sophisticates who advocate multiculturalism would be aware of these blindingly obvious facts of history; but apparently not. The extent to which culture is destroyed when cultures mix, and the extent to which the new hybrid culture is richer than the original cultures no doubt depends on the sophistication of the originals. For example merge two tribes in the jungle of Papua New Guinea each of which had a language with only a thousand words, and one might get a new hybrid language of two thousand words, or thereabouts, since human beings of average intelligence can memorise well over two thousand words. But merge any culture with a present day European culture, and the resulting hybrid will in the long run not be much richer than the original cultures. Other things being equal. Of course the claim that "additions to a culture do not expand that culture" needs qualifying with the "other things being equal" proviso. Increased spending on education or technological improvements will expand or enrich a culture. But assuming technology and other things are constant, then a rule can be formulated about the merging of cultures which goes something like "additions to a reasonably sophisticated culture will

and Phoenix Arizona is now the kidnapping capital of the U.S. Another example of culture destroyed by multiculturalism is the diluting of the UK's fundamental civil liberties that has occurred as a result of multiculturalism, and there is more on this in 10 below.

not greatly enrich or expand that culture ." The rate of cultural destruction. When two cultures merge, obviously the rate at which different aspects of each culture are destroyed varies greatly. Europeans migrating to the US have over the last century lost their native tongues within a couple of generations. In contrast, some migrant groups cling tenaciously to their religion for centuries. Multiculturalists might answer the above point about cultural destruction by claiming that although importing foreign culture will not add to the total number of items making up that culture, nevertheless, the fact of the added item being foreign will mean increased variety for the culture. The answer to this is that the latter point would be true if people were already acquainted with a sizeable proportion of their own culture. For example if you already know three quarters of Elvis Presley's songs, there is a good chance you will get more musical variety by getting to grips with another artist than by learning yet another Elvis song. But of course, the average say English person has not got to grips with more than one percent of English culture. Thus the proposition that the average Brit will be more "enriched" by studying say Buddhism rather than Shakespeare is nonsense - which is not to say Brits shouldnt study Buddhism if they want. next para

The Negative Aspects of Multiculturalism The Negative Aspects of Multiculturalism By Russell Sias

In the United States, the issue of multiculturalism has been largely ignored. At the very least, it has either been inappropriately represented or misunderstood for years, perhaps both. As citizens, we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that diversity is a good thing for those within (and without) our country. In some instances, encouraging diversity is a correct and appropriate position for the citizens of our country to adopt, in others, it is not Where multiculturalism causes a division within the country it is detrimental. Division is created when a specific group refuses to speak the commonly accepted language and resists becoming part of the culture by refusing, for example, to recognize the same holidays and demanding recognition of their own. These and similar practices cause community isolationism, narrowly define markets by cultural or geographic areas, or otherwise separate people into many distinct groups. Such multiculturalism will be devastating to any country because it boldly stands as an obstacle in the way of developing or sustaining common goals and national bonds Knowing a second language is one thing. Teaching our children the culture of our grandparents is a worthwhile endeavor. However, forcing ones culture on a section of our society and isolating that segment from the general population is quite another. It is absolutely necessary that we recognize the hazards that we bring upon ourselves when we allow multiculturalism to dominate our communities or overwhelm our nation. Do we want to live in a country where, when we travel from one community to another, we need to speak different languages, where some communities are likely to be resentful of outsiders, where cultures do not mix, are not shared, and where people have nothing in common? Do we want to allow multiculturalism to segregate our country and then wonder if it will literally come apart as the Soviet Union has done? If the answer to these questions is no, then we must address the many issues caused by our present attitude towards multiculturalism. There are fundamental characteristics that differentiate one country from another. Certain characteristics define our country as a distinct group of unique people, determine our national individuality, and establish our very identity within the world community. Left unchecked, multiculturalism will ultimately lead to a loss of the very culture that defines our country as a separate and distinct entity from other nations of the world. Multiculturalism is a quiet invasion that allows a takeover by a foreign power, just as surely as if we were taken over by violence and force. Successive waves of immigrants have made our country what it is today. It is fitting that we encourage legal immigration within the bounds established by our laws. Immigration laws set limits that allow for assimilation of the newly immigrated population. Without these laws there will be a general fracture in our society and we will cease to be a united country. In the first 150 years of this countrys existence, immigrants came with a desire to become Americans and to

support America. Today under the guise of multiculturalism, many immigrants come with far different goals. During the 2004 Utah legislature a group of Hispanics watched as it became apparent that a bill addressing immigration issues would not be brought to the floor for discussion. In support of Mexican immigrants, a group gathered in the rotunda of the capitol building and chanted Viva Mexico for several minutes. These people clearly have missed out on the opportunity to be true Americans. They do not know the importance of joining with other Americans to be patriots within this great country. They have yet to understand the necessary lessons our immigrant forefathers learned as they strove to become an integral part of these United States. One of the results of multiculturalism is that modern day immigrants are attempting to bring their culture and ways into this country. Hence, they have yet to transfer their allegiance to America, their new home. They deprive themselves of the very essence of what it means to be an American. Those who strive to impose their culture and their ways upon their new neighbors deprive themselves of many of the benefits they seek by immigrating. Immigrants coming to the United States normally come from less prosperous nations. This is, after all, a major reason for their move in the first place. No one disrupts their family or contemplates a significant life style change without good cause. People migrate from other countries because first they are dissatisfied with their present situation and they believe that the new location will be a better environment in which to raise their family. They hope to have a better life for themselves and their loved ones. Unfortunately multiculturalism often supports, within the new culture, many of the very negative cultural characteristics which immigrants are attempting to flee. Immigrants recognize that the country they have deserted is less able to serve them, which is why they are striking out to better themselves, but via multiculturalism, they blindly insist on perpetuating many of the problems that caused them to leave in the first place. The immigrants who bring their failed cultures with them may restructure their new environment to be identical to the one that failed them and from which they are attempting to flee. Abraham Lincoln said: A nation divided cannot stand. Insofar as multiculturalism divides our nation, our country is weakened. Today we see the insidious signs of multiculturalism everywhere. Unless we want a fractured and divided country where different languages are spoken, where anarchy reigns supreme, where people are pitted against anyone from a different segment of the population, where we cannot feel free or safe to come and go to other parts of the country or even to parts of our own towns, then we must recognize the dangers of multiculturalism and make the necessary changes. Either we do this, or we will continue down the path to more and more separate and individual societies, instead of building a single and solid, united American society. Our community leaders, whether mayors, city council members, state legislators, congress, yes, even the President, must look at each and every proposed ordinance, code, and law, to ascertain that it does not promote multiculturalism. Furthermore, we must begin to strike down

those codes and laws that presently encourage the negative aspects of multiculturalism which will weaken, and could ultimately destroy, this great country.

Author grants permission to freely distribute; no modifications may be made without authors written permission.

The Background of Multiculturalism By Fjordman Created 2006-11-16 23:37 I have been trying to analyze the roots of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness. The conclusion Ive come up with so far is that it needs to be understood as a combination of forces and influences, different but not mutually exclusive. One view is that Multiculturalism just happened, an accidental result of technological globalization. Although global migration pressures and modern communications definitely contributed, this thesis is, in my view, almost certainly too simplistic. There is mounting evidence that Multiculturalism was deliberately encouraged by various groups. If anything, it is an indirect result of globalization through multinational corporations and the creation of an international political elite whose mutual loyalty increasingly supersedes national interests. I have heard some commentators say that all the most destructive ideologies of the modern era have originated in Europe. But frankly, Im wondering whether Multiculturalism is the one stupid idea that was actually exported from the United States to Europe. Danish writer Lars Hedegaard claims Multiculturalism comes from the United States following the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. After thinking about it, I find this to be a plausible explanation. Perhaps Multiculturalism partly is an anti-European ideology, with the United States and later Canada, Australia and New Zealand distancing themselves from their European heritage, whereas Europe has distanced itself from itself. I noticed on one conservative American blog that it was perfectly permissible to trash European culture in any way possible, but when I carefully asked some questions about whether the cultural impact of massive Latin American immigration would be exclusively beneficial, I was accused of being racist. Some readers of my essays have suggested that Multiculturalism originated in Canada. Author Claire Berlinski even believes that it was invented in Switzerland. But, with all due respect, the impact of Swiss or Canadian cultural influences abroad has been rather limited. The United States, however, has exerted powerful cultural influence all over the world since WW2, and has been in the position to export such an ideology.

The Civil Rights movement took place against a backdrop of a Western youth rebellion with Marxist influences. Although Multiculturalism may not be directly rooted in Marxist teachings, which helps explain why it has received support by some right-wingers, its anti-Western attitudes and radical Egalitarianism are at least compatible with ideas of forced equality, and aspects of Multiculturalism are sufficiently similar to Marxism to explain why its most ardent supporters are left-wingers, and why Political Correctness, the soft-totalitarian form of censorship employed to enforce Multiculturalism, is so appealing to them. If we postulate that Multiculturalism and Political Correctness were initially born out of a Western loss of cultural confidence, but have since been largely utilized by the Western Left, this would explain why it exists all over the Western world, but strongest in Western Europe, which has had a more powerful Marxist influence and a greater historic loss of self-esteem than the USA. It would explain why Eastern Europeans, who have just experienced decades of Marxist indoctrination, are somewhat more resistant to

it than are Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans have also been much less exposed to the Eurabians of the European Union, who champion Multiculturalism for their own reasons. The best summary I can come up with thus looks something like this: Multiculturalism originated in the United States during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, which triggered a complete re-thinking of American cultural identity in favor of repudiating the European aspects of its heritage to transform into a universal nation. Multiculturalism was exported to the rest of the Western world through American cultural influence, and was picked up by a Western Europe, still with deep emotional scars following its near self-destruction during two world wars, which was then in the process of leaving its colonies and suffered from a post-colonial guilt complex and the identity crisis associated with this. Multiculturalism thus originally had its roots in a cultural identity crisis in the West, but it was quickly expropriated by groups with their own agendas. This period, the 1960s and 70s, was also the birth of the Western Cultural Revolution, a hippie youth rebellion against the established Western culture and institutions that was deeply influenced by Marxist-inspired ideologies. The anti-Western component in Multiculturalism suited them just fine. Following the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 90s, when economic Marxism suffered a blow in credibility although it didnt die, larger segments of the Western political Left switched to Multiculturalism and mass immigration as their political life insurance, and wielded the censorship of Political Correctness and anti-racism as an ideological club to beat their opponents and continue undermining Western institutions. On top of the Marxist influences, in Western Europe we had another groups of Euro-federalists and Eurabians, with a different but overlapping goal of breaking down the national cultures through the promotion of Multiculturalism in favor of a new, artificial identity. The process of globalization did not create these impulses of Western self-loathing, as indicated by the fact that non-Western countries such as Japan have not been overwhelmed by immigration to the same extent as the West, but it reinforced some of them. Technological globalization has increased migration pressures to unprecedented levels, but it has also enabled a global political and economic elite of individuals, including some centrists and right-wingers, who no longer feel any close attachment to their countries, but mainly to the international elites who provide them with career opportunities. These centrists, rightists and Big Business supporters may not be as actively hostile to Western culture as some left-wingers are, but they dont do anything to uphold it, either, and use Multiculturalism to hide the fact that they have lost or abandoned control over national borders. Globalization has thus simultaneously created more migration and less political will to control migration. The combination of all of these factors, in addition to the resurgence of a global Islamic Jihad, is gradually creating a demographic and democratic crisis in the West. Many Westerners sense that their media and their politicians are no longer listening to them, and they are perfectly correct. Those who feel a loyalty to their culture and their nation states feel betrayed, because they are.

The Benefits of Multiculturalism 1. We learn from each other's differences. 2. A broader view of the world forms. 3. Biracial people will feel comfortable. 4. People open their minds freely. 5. Love absolutely sees no colors. The Detriments of Multiculturalism 1. Multicultural empires fall from grace. 2. People reside near unwanted neighbors. 3. Foreign languages might be annoying. 4. Mixture adds irksome stressors at times. 5. Some people worry around other races.