Multiculturalism: Dam to Progress. (Blindland 8)

Multiculturalism is the great hope of the Liberal elite and the offspring the politically

Utopia?

Utopia?

correct (PC) claque. For them the concept is self-explanatory; we all live in the one nation and we must therefore be tolerant towards all other sections of society no matter their religion, ethnic origin or culture. That this policy has been adopted by the government is a cause for celebration for the advocates of multiculturalism. This is after all a great pluralist experiment which illustrates how we can all live in a cohesive, cross pollinating vibrant way. An alternative view would suggest that multiculturalism is not a panacea for the new world but a barrier to change.

It is an ideal world where everyone is different but can understand and accept the ways of others. Where there is no conflict of ideas or of methods of doing things. No one culture dominates. We are equals but own our separate identities. Is such a society any less utopian than Christianity, than Communism? What happens when one or more cultures decide not to accept further change, want to remain steadfast to the ancient ways. Are the leaders of those cultures entitled to force their community to adhere to that diktat? Would each group/community have their own schools to teach their perspective on life or would all schools be forced to teach an all embracing curriculum?

There is a powerful tendency for new migrants to band together in close-knit communities where they feel more relaxed, more likely to receive a welcome and initial help. However, these same communities tend to consolidate in that area. Few venture beyond its confines into the wider society. They become insular, they shop at ethnic stores and the store owners buy from ethnic cash and carry establishments. In that sense they become entombed in the culture they left behind, which is contrary to integration. In their area the old culture dominates and its archaic customs prevail.

The holding on to one’s culture is in contrast to the view of Will Kymlicka a strong advocate of multiculturalism, “Immigrants chose to relinquish access to their native culture by migrating”. www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/multicultualism/

Multiculturalism thus builds its own barriers, “Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettoes with little traffic between or among them”. Diana L. Eck, Pluralism project at Harvard University. In such circumstances as ghettoes it is little wonder that the old ways predominate. In some communities we have the emergence of ‘patriarchal cultures’ and internal discrimination against residents of those communities.

In the recent past we have had stories highlighted on news bulletins about; vote rigging in Council elections (UK) and the more barbaric female genital mutilation (FGM). Of course such practices are widely condemned by the government and have been given due prominence in the national media. The Independent, 03/07/2014 reported that

children never win

children never win

some 170,000 women and girls living in Britain have suffered FGM and a further 65,000 girls under 13 years are at risk. The paper cites the government’s Home Affairs Select Committee as denouncing the practice of FGM as an “extreme form of child abuse”. The practice has been illegal since 1985 but obviously continues. An estimated 125 million females have suffered FGM worldwide.

Another cultural custom is that of ‘arranged marriages’ whereby young women/girls are taken from their country of birth (UK) to be married in some Asian nation. As with FGM, arranged marriages are illegal in the UK but the law is ignored. The numbers of those females affected clearly point to widespread abuse and thP5JCL2I0a total disregard for the rule of law in the UK. The practices are an anachronism in today’s society and anathema to equality. “Like it or not-and many from Plato to Marx have disliked it-law is the central concept in human society; without it, indeed, there would be no society”. Quoted from Lloyd’s The Idea of Law 1966 www.jstor.org/discovery/10.2307/

The young people who follow the jihadist trail to Syria would suggest that some communities are lost to UK society when grouped with FGM, ballot rigging and forced marriage. The gulf between us seems unbridgeable, “Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies”. The isolation of some groups maybe the result of intimidation, indoctrination, fear or belief; nonetheless, if a majority think contrary to the practices mentioned but remain silent, the wider public are left to assume whatever they wish. www.plualism.org/pages/pluralism/what_is_pluralism

Moreover, those who promote multiculturalism and representation of minorities on various political bodies are in fact saying that democracy is inefficient to meet their particular mindset. However, to deny the principle of democracy is to deny the ‘rights’ of the majority population. It is the notion of democratic rights that maintains consensus which allows society to continue on a peaceful course. To undermine the democratic principle would be to undermine one of the main tenets of our society. But as with the pluralists, the liberal elite and the claque seem to have little regard for democracy and the “stolid mass”. Michael Young

A considerable number of the websites visited about this subject matter stress the point of no one culture being dominant. If no culture is to dominate does that include language? Would everyone in the country need to become multilingual? In his book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam highlighted a poignant observation; while the folks he studied did not display any overt racism, “Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours”.

It also raises a very pertinent question about democracy and the place of the majority population. Under a democratic framework the majority vote holds sway and therefore it is anticipated that the majority culture will likewise take precedence. To undermine democracy is to let the dogs out and the consequences could be severe.

I would assume that the Liberal elite and their PC claque are not advocating a duality of rights and a duality of law in the country. And hopefully they would not countenance turning a blind eye towards inequality. Nonetheless, it is the Liberal elite and their claque that have demonised the ordinary Joe for not being tolerant. In its strictest sense, “Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about each other”. Pluralism .org (ibid) A duality of approach would be a seed for the most pernicious weed.

Furthermore, a tolerant society is not one which fails to challenge inequities of any nature. A tolerant society is one that insists that all are treated equally, has a transparency of objectives, with an expectation that all will abide by. However, ‘all’ does not mean ‘all’ to the liberal elite, the claque and their pluralist soul mates. Therein lies the base hypocrisy of this elitist brigade. They talk boldly about equality but massage its definition.

There are two key issues that sum up an equal society, the place of women and the rights of children. For me a woman’s right is quite straightforward: any woman must be able to walk down any street at any time with any one of her choice and have that choice accepted as normal.

As for children they must have the right to grow and be educated without any form of indoctrination. Decisions on religion etc. can be taken by the individual once they have reached an age of maturity, at present 18 years. This may accelerate change in ways we can’t quite grasp at this time but that is the nature of some change. We can jockey with equality through the smokescreen of our politics until the concept becomes meaningless or step back from our biases and truly put children first.

Multiculturalism as noted has not achieved the desired result and we now have communities stuck in their narrow outlook. This creates a polarization on all sides. Diversity thus becomes a drag on building a better society. It condemns many within some groups from experiencing the full rigour of the culture of the wider society and vice versa. It becomes a system of enclosures that allows better control by the Overlords. Multiculturalism is therefore an anchor on progress.

Moreover, culture is a transient phenomenon, look no further than gay rights and our more open society. How different is today’s world from that of the 1950s? This was not a forced change but a gradual transition from the 1945 election, the Teddy Boys, and the Hippie period of the early 1960s. The advent of mass media, its exploitation and the growth of multinational companies, all brought new ideas in a whirlwind. Thus culture is a temporary chain, a chain made from rope which will eventually rot. If culture is a chain made of titanium then we must ready ourselves for many wars ahead.

Note the sentiment of E. Adamson Hoebel, “Hoebel describes culture as an integrated system of learned behaviour patterns which are characteristic of members of a society and which are not a result of biological inheritance”. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture

We can all learn new behaviours!

 

Immigration: Boom or Bust (1)

Is this right?

Is this right?

Advocates of immigration see no problem with the volume of migrants entering the country. On the contrary, the majority of the people, (based on opinion polls and on support for Ukip) take a very different view. The two main strands that are in open discussion are the view of business and the Metropolitan elite that immigration is a positive for the nation. The wider populace have concerns as to the scale of numbers coming into the country and the overall effect on: welfare, health, education, housing, and roads: cars, pollution etc., on

Or is this right?

Or is this right?

culture and the values that make up the fabric of a cohesive society.

However, there is another side, a much darker hidden side and one of deep despair. We do not talk of this consequence of immigration because it would showcase just what a sick society we truly are.

As far as business are concerned, it’s a simple equation; the more the merrier. Some aspects of their logic make good sense. There are vacancies that need to be filled and if that specific skill set is not available locally then allow someone from abroad to fill the role. Otherwise the company could lose the contract which could have an adverse effect on those already employed.

There is good support for the argument of business. Tom Papworth, www.centreforum.org  suggests that there is compelling evidence that immigration is good for the country. In the same article, Peri & Davis are equally positive, “The economic question is not whether a domestic worker is capable of doing the job, but whether it is more efficient to allocate the job to a domestic or a foreign worker”. The LSE note, that there is little evidence of a negative impact of immigration. The London Chamber of Commerce likewise add a positive voice.

Business leaders and many politicians point out that the local population are not as well educated nor share the same work ethic as their foreign counterparts. While this might hold a grain of truth it also leaves open the question of why that should be so. Who is to be held responsible for the characteristics and culture identified? A mirror is a very handy tool to check out how one looks!

Why did the UK get rid of apprenticeships only to, more recently, have a sudden frenzy to re-introduce them? The former was a decision proposed by business and carried out by politicians! Now business wants to be paid for taking-on apprentices. Getting rid of apprenticeships caused a severe shortage of skilled tradesmen which lead to a mass influx of Eastern European workers who were better qualified and crucially cheaper. Many may view business ethics as akin to those of a louse. A louse does not much care on whose hair or head it lays its nits as long as it gets fed.

As for the Metropolitan elite they hide behind the mantra of multiculturalism. It is their contention that many cultures can co-exist in harmony. History would tend to dispute that assumption: Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, Croatia, Check Republic, and Slovenia and presently the tension in Ukraine. Thus multiculturalism has no intellectual basis but is borne of political expediency. To run without the knowledge and experience of history is to always run with blinkers on.

Even our limited experience of multiculturalism in the UK has been one of ethnic enclaves, of segregation by choice or circumstance. Behind some of these closed environments we are left to assume that all is well. However, some groups have brought cultural attitudes which are contrary to human rights legislation. Multiculturalism by its very sense envisages that the people retain their culture, their belief systems, and their definitive outlook on life. There is no room here for change either as a community or on an individual basis. That is why multiculturalism is a dodo!

The advocates of multiculturalism may point to the long established Chinese community to support their political belief. Contrary to that outlook the Chinese community can readily be described as a closed one. A community that may hide gross violations of human rights but which we are prepared to ignore because it does not directly affect us. The hypocrisy of our toleration is exposed in our other guise as living in a Liberal democracy. We may pretend that by visiting China town and having a meal we are somehow having a cultural exchange, it’s simply that, pretence.

th0HFP8Z3GImmigration and the fear it evokes is not new. The 1948 Nationality Act allowed anyone from the Commonwealth to come to the UK, some 800 million. (Wikipedia) Of course that was not practical but many did come, many on request, but such were the numbers that in 1962 the Commonwealth Immigration Act was passed. Another law was enacted in 1968 and again in 1972 and a further immigration law in 1981. In 1997, the ‘primary purpose rule’ was abolished. It is important to note that tension regarding immigration has not dissipated; on the contrary some would argue it has become more entrenched. Over the past decade there have been 83 changes to immigration legislation.

According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS) net immigration has risen each year between 2000 & 2008. In 2006 over 154,000 were granted citizenship and a further 134,400 were granted settlement. In 2009 net migration was 196,000. The coldness of the figures on immigration disguises an enormous problem.  A new town every year! Tension increased to such an extent that in 2003 the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair promised to slash asylum seekers by 50% in just seven (7) months. In 2008 the government introduced a fine of £10,000 for each illegal immigrant found working in a business. Obviously problems had been identified.

The decision by the Labour Government to open the borders and create open access was a deliberate policy between 2000 & 2008. Andrew Neather. The European statistical body, Eurostat claimed that in 2010 the UK population was 62 million of which some seven (7) million were foreign born.

 

There has been 50 years of tension concerning immigration, thus it’s generational, a point many would like to remain hidden. The tension is high because the numbers remain high. The BBC (28 Nov: 2013) reported that close on 0.5 million immigrants arrived in the UK in 2012. Official figures for net migration in that year were 176,000 a sizable increase on the 2011 figure of 153,000. The most recent numbers for 2013 are 212,000 up 37% on the previous year. (Reuters)

The question is one of sustainability, for how long can the country manage the scale of numbers? This point is given added credence when the 2011 Census revealed 464,800 more people in the country than the ONS had calculated. WOW! The politicians’ response – stop having a census! Bury the truth: the first stage in Stalinist rule! No politician has of yet come forward to explain the cost of sustainability or to allay the fears of the people in any sensible way.

Is it all about economic efficiency? After all we do live in a capitalist world; therefore should we not logically serve the one God? Perhaps we are hoodwinking ourselves by promoting the notion of community, of social cohesion, of society. Capitalism is a dominant force in our lives and maybe we should accept this and bow to the inevitable: let the dogs out and fend for ourselves.

What I find enigmatic about the whole thing is the political shallowness and shadow-boxing of the proponents. In support of mass immigration we have the ‘Left’ in UK politics, the Liberal party and the business community. In the opposite corner we have strong elements of the ‘right’ in UK politics and the working class. Note that it is the working class who suffer most from mass immigration and their erstwhile political leaders of the Left who are the main advocates. Intriguing! 1960s again!