Based in "Universal Principles"; "abstract Principles"; "utopian"; "egalitarian," etc.: These are the terms that conservatives and neo-conservatives, otherwise enemies, use to describe use to describe multiculturalism. Consider "HarrisonBergeron2," over at Conservative Heritage Times, who approvingly quotes Kenneth Minogue:
Loyalty is the emotion that sustains reactionaries. They reject the universals that generate such political enthusiasm among radicals. It is the dream of perfect abstractions such as the nation, or internationalism, democracy, rights, and social justice that fires radicals’ blood and dismays reactionaries. These abstractions refer rather remotely to things that may be valuable in national practice, but separated from the history and traditions in which they are embedded, they often become dangerous sources of fanatical allegiance. Reactionaries are loyal to concrete experiences, usually to their country’s values—and sometimes to unreal memories of that tradition in contrast to the decline they see around them. This makes them in the highest degree critical, and it is ironic that “being critical” (i.e., a heroic antagonist of current prejudices) is a piece of self-flattery generally claimed by radicals rather than reactionaries.
"HarrisonBergeron2" adds:
Meanwhile, America is hurtling down the multicultural highway in pursuit of the abstract ideal of equality. Instead of hitting the gas, maybe it’s time to pull over and get better directions.
Lawrence Auster has also long sounded this theme.
All three men, and both camps, are utterly wrong.
There is nothing universal, abstract, utopian, tolerant, non-discriminatory or egalitarian about multiculturalism.
Here's what multiculturalism is about: Terrorizing, robbing, enslaving and murdering whites. Each member of the multicultural alliance fancies it will then be in charge, but it is far more likely that they will then murder each other, until no one is left.
No comments:
Post a Comment