Storm Track Appeasement: Pluralism vs Multiculturalism

There are many things wrong with the concept of multiculturalism. The first of which are its attempts at replacing it with what makes a free society great – pluralism. Multiculturalism believes that all cultures are equal but that’s not true.

For example, the bushman of in Australia could, as individuals, be trained to fly the space shuttle. But that doesn’t make their culture equal to ours because they can’t build a space shuttle. You can try and give everyone equal opportunity and treat everyone equally - but that doesn’t make us equal.

A little story gives a good example of this.

Once upon a time, the animals decided that they must do something to meet the problems of the ‘New World’. So, they organized a school. They adopted an activity curriculum consisting of running, climbing, swimming, and flying and all the animals had to take all the subjects.

The duck was excellent in swimming. In fact, better than his instructors, but he made only passing grades in flying and was very poor in running. Since he was slow in running, he had to stay after school and also drop swimming in order to practice running. This was kept up until his feet were badly worn and he was only average in swimming. But average was acceptable in school since that would make him more equal. So nobody worried about that except the duck.

The rabbit started at the top of the class in running but had a nervous break-down because of so much make-up work in swimming.

The squirrel was excellent in climbing until he developed frustration in flying class where his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of the treetop down. He also developed charley horses from over-exertion and then got a C in climbing and a D in running.

The eagle was a problem child and disciplined severely. In the climbing class he beat all the others to the top of the tree, but insisted on using his own way of getting there.

At the end of the year, an abnormal eel that could swim exceedingly well and also run, climb and fly a little had the highest average and was made valedictorian.

Equality is a fine ideal. But like all other ideas, it can be pursued to absurdity. The same with multiculturalism. Melanie Phillips wrote about the problem of multiculturalism.

Many people think multiculturalism just means showing respect and tolerance to other cultures and faiths. If that were so, it should be unarguable. We should all support respect and tolerance. But that's not what multiculturalism is at all. It holds that all minority values must have equal status to those of the majority. Any attempt to uphold majority values over minorities is a form of prejudice. That turns minorities into a cultural battering ram to destroy the very idea of being a majority culture at all.

The end result of multiculturalism the Balkanization of a society. Pluralism, on the other hand, doesn’t do this. Pluralism is based a values system that we all hold in common. Multiculturalism is based on lowest common denominator values in a society.

Back to Melanie Phillips .

Pluralism allows for many different groupings but, unlike multiculturalism, does not try to impose one uniform status on all of them. It allows a thousand flowers to bloom, with minorities forming communities of faith, ethnicity or culture within a society — but under the overarching umbrella of a national identity to whose core values everyone signs up. It is only by having that overarching set of common values — monogamy, freedom of conscience, equal rights for women, freedom of expression — that a society coheres as a common project.

Now, the USA and Australia have a leg up on pluralism on Europe. Why? Because of the way both countries were founded, when you come to America as an ethnic group you are immediately accepted being an American. Same with Australia. But when you immigrate to a European country, you are not a European and you are definitely not a Frenchman, German, Dutchman, etc. etc.

Now let’s consider the Muslim.

"What Unites And What Divides Us? Tough Questions for Islam and the West" brought together journalists, policy experts, and representatives of civic organizations from the Islamic world, Europe, and the United States. Discussion and disagreements abounded, but many participants found common ground around one idea. That is, fostering pluralism and participatory forms of government in the Muslim world could offer hope for moderating some of the radical political parties that claim to speak for Islam. And, ultimately, that might help bridge today's sharp divides between East and West.

But can you foster pluralism in Islam? Can you foster pluralism in a culture that sees itself superior to every other culture in world? And when it says it is attempting to assimilate, Muslims, over the last decade or so, instead use intimidation and disinformation tactics to dominate the non-Muslim culture they live in. That is why they can use the weaknesses of multiculturalism as it’s practiced today as a weapon to beat other cultures into submission with the help of their non-Muslim useful idiots who worship at the alter of political correctness and multiculturalism.

Tolerance is the main argument of multiculturalism and those who hold that view hold up America as a prime example of tolerance. But tolerance can go too far. A new book by Amy Chua entitled “Day of Empire - How Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance -- and Why They Fall” takes on this concept tolerance as it applies to what she calls hyperpowers.

Every "hyperpower" in history, she writes, has been "at least by the standards of its time, extraordinarily pluralistic and tolerant during its rise to preeminence." Imperial Rome and Britain, China's Tang Dynasty, Achaemenid Persia, the United States -- in the rise to preeminence, each was more accepting of racial, ethnic and religious difference than the competing powers of its age.

Such a happily multicultural case may strike skeptics as politically correct cant, but Chua's argument is clear-eyed and hard-headed. For most of history, tolerance has been a tactical expedient rather than an abstract principle, a way of stoking economic dynamism, increasing manpower and maximizing the efficiency of political control. "To attain and maintain dominance on a global scale," Chua notes, "coercion is simply too inefficient, persecution too costly, and ethnic or religious homogeneity, like inbreeding, too unproductive." In short, tolerance is a force multiplier: It enables a nation to do more with the resources it has. Great powers do well by doing good.

But there are limits to the positive contribution of tolerance.

At some point, strategic tolerance reaches a limit and "sow[s] the seeds of decline," setting off a cycle of "conflict, hatred, and violence." That ominous note is especially evident in Chua's discussion of the U.S. She fears we may be approaching the point at which tolerant rise gives way to intolerant fall.

And where pray tell is this conflict, hatred, and violence coming from. I don’t have to tell you. Just look at the today’s headlines, but the main source is the end result of political correctness and multiculturalism that has replaced pluralism as the tolerant force in our society.

We need to recognize that pluralism is distinctly different from multiculturalism. One is based on strong, positive values. The other is based on appeasing everyone with a lowest common denominator approach. It must stop if we are to preserve the best of the free world’s cultures.

Get a FREE TRIAL COPY of the The Gathering Storm eBook which includes the Forward by Walid Shoebat, Introduction, and first 50 pages of The Gathering Storm eBook. And sign up for my free WEEKLY STORM REPORT and receive a synopsis of the most important weekly news revealing the intimidation, infiltration and disinformation tactics used to soften-up the non-Muslim world for domination.