[ Homepage ] [ Deism ] [ Christianity in America ] [ Debunking Islam ]
[ Article List ] [ Sullivan County, TN ] [ Bristol VA/TN ]


Lenin

A Discussion on Multiculturalism and the Real Agenda

by Lewis Loflin

Multiculturalism seems take on a religious mystique with its followers. But what is multiculturalism all about? We will explore the real purpose of multiculturalism as a weapon of division, racism, and who's behind it. Political correctness runs "hand in hand" with multiculturalism.

Google the term "definition multiculturalism" to get a concise definition, instead we get vague nonsense.

1. "Term used to describe many cultures and learning to get on with one another with mutual respect."
2. "stressing the importance of different cultures, races, and ethnicities."
3. "refers to a policy developed in the '70s by Australian governments looking for a way of replacing assimilationist policies. It was based on the belief that society would work better if people felt their cultural beliefs were respected and that they did not have to abandon their values to be considered good Australians."
4. "refers to a belief or policy that endorses the principle of cultural diversity and supports the right of different cultural and ethnic groups to retain distinctive cultural identities. It has often been criticized for being too symbolic and not politically radical enough in challenging racism."
5. "the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country"
6. "Multiculturalism is a policy, that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures in the world, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries." www.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia has the most extensive entries on the term, but the whole page is disputed and again is just too vague. It does point out endless controversy from various groups. The history is obvious, being little used before the 1960s, then entered Canada and spread everywhere. None of this connected it to the real overall agenda. Let's see if we can construct a real intention here.

#1 and #2 are just unrealistic utopianism. In the real world this just doesn't happen. (Think of Lebanon and Yugoslavia.) #3 says it was developed by Australia, #6 says Canada. Regardless, it's a government policy (#3) to end assimilation, based on the unrealistic utopianism belief of #1 #2. But it doesn't answer who believes this. This obviously refers to immigration.

Definition #4 gets more strident: these groups all the sudden have some "right" to retain whatever "culture" they have, but then it enters into the race issue. This is absurd, first we start with culture that anyone could change, then we get into race which nobody can change. Many Muslims whine that anyone opposing Islam is racist, but Islam is a religion, not a race. I can see how so many graduates of our elite colleges get so confused on these things. #5 makes it clear someone desires several "cultures" exist in the same country "equitably." But what does that mean? In the US all citizens are already "equal" before the law.

Professor Gregory Jay of the University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee claims multiculturalism came into widespread use in the 1980s, at least in public education. But he points out (indirectly) of the racist nature of multiculturalism attacking so-called "Eurocentric" bias.

Morman Freeman
Morgan Freeman

By 2006 decades of racist quotas, racial social engineering, etc. had failed and most Americans no longer even cared. The great actor Morgan Freeman said it best to Mike Wallace in December 2005 when he called Black History Month "ridiculous" and told liberals to basically end this endless racial labeling and identify people as individuals, not collectively in some special racial group. Bill Cosby in 2004 told black America to start acting in a responsible manner and end this crude black culture. In other words, cultural assimilation would go a great way in ending economic inequality. Adopt the plain-old American ethic of hard work, education and thrift. And it does work as millions of Asian immigrants have proven.

David Horowitz in Up from Multiculturalism (1998) calls multiculturalism, "two lies in one word, " its "agenda is the deconstruction of the idea of American nationality, in the service of the mindless, destructive, never-ending radical assault on the capital of the democratic world...Multiculturalism is the team banner of the hate-America Left."

As Horowitz properly concludes, "America has been the inclusive multi-national, multi-ethnic society, unparalleled in all human history in its success in integrating diverse communities on the basis of an ideal of equality. This success has been predicated on an American culture (not a multi-culture) that makes that integration possible and sustains that American idea. Multiculturalism is the "view that everyone (except white people), and every culture (except Western culture) is equal, and deserves equal respect. The culture arrogantly called Western Civilization is exclusionary and has to go."

Marxism was concerned with economic issues, not culture as such. Socialism was not invented by Marx. Quoting Lenin, "the three sources of Marxism are: British political economy, French Socialism and German idealist philosophy." (www.marxism.org) In other words, Marxism, socialism, etc. in its various forms is the product of upper class intellectuals and academic elitists. Marxism was never widely accepted by the working class unless conditions were so desperate they had no choice.

This was a very big problem for the left in general. The working class just wasn't rising up to destroy capitalism. They got a Marxist government in Russia in 1917, but it failed to spread. It failed in Berlin and with the Bela Kun government in Hungary. Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, two Marxist theorists, thought they had the answer.

Gramsci believed workers didn't know what was good for them. They were "blinded" by religion and western culture in general. Lukacs, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" They theorized that the great obstacle to creating of the great Marxist paradise was the culture was Western civilization itself. The entire culture had to be destroyed, in particular Christianity.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established by German millionaire Felix Weil. It became the Institute for Social Research or the Frankfurt School because of the association with Frankfurt University. It was supposed to be called the Institute for Marxism, but they wanted that kept out of the public eye. Marxism had failed economically, now was the time for "cultural Marxism." By 1930 this "school" combined Marxism with Freudism, producing so-called "Critical Theory."

Critical Theory calls for the most destructive criticism possible, on everything western, designed to bring the current order down. They don't bring Marxism up, just a constant drumbeat of anti-western hate under the guise of human rights, social progress, etc. This is always applied to western countries such as the US and Israel, but never to communist China in Tibet or to Arab terrorist states. Christianity and Judaism face endless attacks, radical fundamentalist Islam is protected.

Think about what's going on here. Multiculturalism discourages assimilation based on the irrational claims all cultures are equal. If that was true, why are million fleeing the advanced culture of tribalism, socialism, and general third-world failure to move to western nations? Also, why create "balkanized" groups of often incompatible cultures in western nations? It will lead to their breakup, wreck their economies, etc. Marxism in its various forms is apocalyptic - awaiting the fall and ruin of western society to usher in the one-world socialist utopia. Political correctness assures the process goes unquestioned.

I don't believe this is some conspiracy. Much of our academia is hostile to traditional western culture for a variety of reasons. Because they have a mostly unfettered access to American youth, in particular upper class college students, they have devastating power to influence much of the public outlook. Let's face the fact these students (Harvard, Yale, etc) often inherit the success of the parents, that got them into these institutions to begin with. Thus they "control" the media, arts, government, etc. These positions are not open to two-year college graduates or those with just high school.

I'll be clear I don't buy into these conspiracy theories put out by Bill Lind (The Origins of Political Correctness) and Pat Buchanan, both often have anti-Semitic undertones. As for the 60s sex liberation being part of Freudism and Critical Theory, these have been tendencies among the "filthy rich" for centuries.

Symposium: The Death of Multiculturalism? FrontPageMagazine.com | September 8, 2006 (extract) This is a panel discussion. While this discussion here is mainly on Muslims, I'm focusing on multiculturalism. Muslims are a prime example the explodes this multiculturalism myth.

"You don't need conspiracies or plots...to explain the general drift of the European left over the past three to four decades. (The left)...have simply changed ideological focus from socialism and collectivism to multiculturalism and cultural relativism...that the left is attracted to the new ideology because they see it as a means to overthrow capitalism...the basic "project" is not about socialism but about power. Multiculturalism should not be understood as a way to introduce socialism by other means..."

Comment: But it can be used to undermine the culture and as they point out socialism could take over the ruins. Marxism after all is predicted on the collapse of western society, even if the left has to make this "self fulfilling prophecy." Lewis

To continue, "I certainly don't blame Islam or Muslims for our plight. They cannot be expected to integrate into a society, a political and legal system or a culture that are antithetical to all they believe in and stand for...the left-Islamist alliance will be short-term. Once the leftists have succeeded in creating a new people...they will quickly realize that this new people will have no need for their ideological guidance and will not acknowledge them as their natural leaders...As for the solution...We can forget about integrating Muslims..."

"Look to Denmark! Denmark is without doubt the Bellwether of Europe. Denmark has radically changed the immigration policy. First, the fetching marriages have to be stopped...studies show clearly that if you manage to integrate the mother, the main integration job is done, because the mother integrates the children. Today in Europe the situation is precisely the same in the ghettos as is the situation in the Arab/Muslim world. The women are kept in ignorance by force. Many evil consequences result from this position of women, the first being that it leads to a bad upbringing for their children. This fact is, for example, one major reason behind the revolts in France in the ghettos last year...most people, especially women, want to take part in a free and open society. The failed politics of Europe have betrayed the women, youngsters and children. The politics have preserved the power of the men."

...We have to be crystal clear on our basic values as free and open societies, and never tolerate intolerance, be it intolerance towards girls and women and homosexuals, or be it intolerance towards the basic pillars of our democracy: freedom of speech, religious freedom, and equality between citizens...

Comment: Because of multiculturalism many laws protecting women and girls are ignored. They are isolated from general society and often face abuse and control from men that's unacceptable in the west.

To continue, "They (EU leadership) are abject devotees of multiculturalism and the welfare state, of the UN and Amnesty International and any group with the word “Racism” in its name, and they keep being patted on the head by professors and journalists and politicians who assure them how brave and radical they’re being by standing up to the big bad U.S.A. and its evil lackey, Israel."

"Yes, there are liberty-loving Europeans who sit at home quietly shaking their heads while all this PC protesting is going on...how do we get those Europeans to stand up en masse for democracy and individual rights and against the slow, steady destructiveness of multiculturalism? How do we get them to stop being cowed by the media and the authorities and terrified of being called racists or Islamophobes?"

Comment: Intimidation and screams of "racism" and "intolerance" are used to shut off debate and silence opposition. Note that this doesn't apply to any non-white or non-western groups. Non-white racism is encouraged and any acceptance or export of western culture brings screams of "cultural imperialism."

All of this aside, we need to look at the thoughts in their own writings, of the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III. Here is the real source of all of these problems in a vision system that encompasses various forms of Marxism or what I call Marxism Lite. I'll let the reader judge for themselves. Be it religious or secular humanism, it's the same thing and operates as a pseudo-religion complete with dogma. This has little or no relation to either classical or religious humanism.

The three humanist manifestos below have over 5500 words and mostly preaching from the Humanist Society. I will condense the real message and get to the point with their real agenda.

The Humanist Manifesto I was penned in 1933 and consists of 15 sections. They keep misusing the term "humanism" which has several meanings they interchange this with "religious humanism."

Sections 1-3 simply proclaim atheism (scientific Naturalism) and rejects and "the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected."

Section 4 claims an individual is a product of their culture alone. It seems there's no room for anyone outside a group, nor are they responsible for anything.

Section 5 proclaims, "Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method." In reality, it's a religion based on science.

Section 6, theism , deism, etc. are rejected.

Sections 7-12 same as 1-3.

Section 13, all institutions "must be reconstituted" to their humanist ideals. This is what communism did where it gained power.

Section 14, world socialism.

Section 15, more preaching.

Thus Humanist Manifesto I is atheism and socialism. Being a pseudo-religion in itself, atheism is used to remove other belief systems. Humanist Manifesto II was produced in 1970 in response to failures of Manifesto I and has 17 sections.

1: spiritual atheism. To quote, "we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know..." In other words, it seems to be scientific pantheism. And, "we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation...We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals...we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species..."

2: No heaven or hell or afterlife. Not only do they attack traditional religion, but try to separate themselves from secular traditions acting as religions. (communism, facsism)

3: People are the source of morality. Moral relativism.

4: Reason alone (based on science), no room for faith.

5 and 6: Anything goes for moral behavior, including any kind of sex.

7: Civil rights, they give lip service to the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They would "extend" these like all institutions along the "humanist model.

8: all aspects of society would be "humanized."

9: Contradictory nonsense. They call for the state not to favor any religion or any "single ideology" while everything is "humanized."

10: "the door is open to alternative economic systems." (Socialism)

11: moral equality or relativism. The welfare state and "universal education" along humanist lines. Political correctness.

12: The end of national sovereignty and individual nations, all institutions under a world government. Promotion of multiculturalism.

13: pacifism.

14: eco-world socialism, population growth must be checked by international concord because nature is a moral value itself. This is the basis of much of the environmental movement that thinks people are expendable while frogs are not.

15: World welfare state transferring massive amounts of wealth from developed nations to third-word countries. Birth control. Economic leveling.

16: flip-flop nonsense. They attack censorship of science based on moral grounds, then turn around and want to control it. No moral values in relation to technology.

17: The end of individual nations, open borders, and international control and "evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education...full international cooperation (control) in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders.

While they promote "cultural pluralism," there is no room for the traditional religious beliefs of those cultures. Paul Kurtz wrote Manifesto II, and Manifesto 2000.

Humanist Manifesto 2000

Drafted by Professor Paul Kurtz, International Academy of Humanism, USA

While more of the above, I'll cut through the preaching and get to their real agenda:

Develop a new Planetary Humanism, a Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities...need for an explicit Planetary Bill of Rights and Responsibilities that applies to all members of the human species. A New Global Agenda...If we are to influence the future of humankind, we will need to work increasingly with and through the new centers of power and influenceto...develop global institutions...(rejecting free-market initiatives) to develop new global institutions. These include the call for a bicameral legislature in the United Nations, with a World Parliament elected by the people, an income tax to help the underdeveloped countries, the end of the veto in the Security Council, an environmental agency,and a world court with powers of enforcement.

Prometheus Books is a publishing company founded in 1969, which publishes scientific, educational, and popular books, especially those of a secular humanist or skeptical nature. Their headquarters are located in Amherst, New York and they publish worldwide. They have published books by personages such as Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman, Martin Gardner, Antony Flew, Ibn Warraq, George H. Smith, James Randi, and Philip J. Klass. Paul Kurtz serves as proprietor.

What is the Frankfurt School? From http://filer.case.edu/~ngb2/Pages/Intro.html

The scholars that made up the Frankfurt school were all directly, or indirectly associated with a place called the Institute of Social Research. The nickname of the thinkers, originates in the location of the institute, Frankfurt Germany...these philosophers believed, and shared Karl Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism. (They) observed the beginning of Communism in Russia, and the resulting fascism in Italy. They lived through the first world war, the rise and fall of Hitler, and of course the devastation of the Holocaust. They formed reactions that were attempts to reconcile Marxist theory with the reality of what the people and governments of the world were going through. Each member of the Frankfurt school adjusted Marxism with his additions, or "fix" if you will. They then used the "fixed" Marxist theory as a measure modern society needed to meet. These ideas came to be known as "Critical Theory."


Professor Gregory Jay
Department of English
University of Wisconsin--Milwaukee
Last Revised December 2002

Like most words, "multiculturalism" needs to be understood from both an historical and a conceptual perspective. Historically, "multiculturalism" came into wide public use during the early 1980s in the context of public school curriculum reform. Specifically, the argument was made that the content of classes in history, literature, social studies, and other areas reflected what came to be called a "Eurocentric" bias. Few if any women or people of color, or people from outside the Western European tradition, appeared prominently in the curriculums of schools in the United States. This material absence was also interpreted as a value judgment that reinforced unhealthy ethnocentric and even racist attitudes.

Observers noted that teaching and administrative staffs in schools were also overwhelmingly white and/or male (whiteness being pervasive at the teaching level, maleness at the administrative level, reflecting the politics of gender and class as well as race in the educational system). Eventually parallel questions were raised (once more) about the ethno-racial or cultural biases of other institutions, such as legislatures, government agencies, corporations, religious groups, private clubs, etc. Each of these has in turn developed its own response and policies regarding multiculturalism.

Finally, "multiculturalism" may also have become a popular term as "race" lost much of its former credibility as a concept. Scientists agree that, in terms of DNA genetics, "race" has no significant meaning as a way of categorizing human differences. Intermarried families offer the puzzle of a parent and child considered as belonging to two different races--clearly an absurd idea given that race was thought of as biologically passed from parent to offspring. Thus "culture" began to replace "race" as a term for distinguishing among distinct human groups.

 


This is a hate crime???

[ Grundy VA Fraud ] [ Social Apartheid ] [ Guestbook Archive

[ Killing Children ] [ George Bush Defends Saudi Terrorism ] [ Islamic Fascism ]
[ Palestine Myth ] [ Arlene Peck on Arabs ] [ Muslim Immigration Must be Halted ]

Visitors since
March 2002