A most splendid idea


The Great Lie that is multiculturalism is founded upon the utterly absurd belief that no one culture is inherently superior to any other. While the idea sounds wonderful in theory, in practice it has always and everywhere been used to demean and destroy Western cultures- which, along with specific Asian counterparts in China and Japan, have proven to be the highest-achieving and most robust cultures around.

Western culture, founded as it is upon the quite unique combination of Judeo-Christian morality, Greco-Roman philosophy, and post-Enlightenment science (and one can and should argue that the third is derived from the first two), has proven to be vastly superior to any of the alternatives, with the possible exception of post-Meiji Japan. But instead of praising the achievements and values that have built the great civilisations of Europe and America, cultural Marxists have always sought to attack the foundations and ideals that drive Western culture.

They have done so very successfully, for far too long. Today we routinely see Christianity mocked and derided as being "obsolete" or out of touch with reality; in its place, we see them attempt to elevate pagan barbarism and Mohammedan blasphemy by glossing over the absurd, indefensible, and backward foundations of their alternatives.

And what happens when multiculturalists are asked to defend their beliefs, leading as they inevitably do to barbarism and destruction? They dodge; they shout and scream; they disqualify; they lie; and they attempt to stifle any and all free debate by calling "racists" those of us who recognise multiculturalism for the poison that it is.

So it is with considerable approval that I greet the idea put forth by Nick Hallett over at Breitbart.com a few days ago:
British society has become increasingly fragmented, to the extent where whole neighbourhoods are transformed into mono-cultural communities with little regard for the outside world. 
Within these communities – especially, it has to be said, the Muslim ones – radical beliefs flourish unchallenged as youths lack any contact with outside ideas – the exact thing diversity campaigners wanted to avoid. 
Meanwhile, in a desperate attempt to hold everything together, Britain’s governing elite has tried to force a suffocating political correctness onto the rest of the population – telling them to “celebrate diversity” and take extra care not to offend anyone, while stamping out the horrors of “prejudice”, “bigotry” and “Islamophobia”. 
Freedom of speech and civil liberty suffers while society drifts further apart. 
So what is to be done? Perhaps it’s time for a radical new solution, one that may lead certain people of a hypersensitive liberal-left disposition to spit out their fair trade organic lattes in shock – let’s have a proper debate between all the different faiths about which one is right. 
Let’s stop pussyfooting around and have Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and all the rest setting out their stall and telling the country why they are the one true faith. 
Let’s have televised debates between priests and imams over whether Christ really rose from the dead or Mohammed was divinely inspired. 
Let’s have Jewish leaders defend the Tanach and Hindus try to persuade a sceptical audience about the truth of the Vedas. 
Some may think this may only lead to trouble, but there is no reason why people with deep religious conviction should be put off – as the Archbishop of Canterbury says, if you are so sure that what you believe is the absolute universal truth then you will surely be proved right in a free and open debate. 
After all, religion is nothing if it does not claim to be absolutely true – to explain why we are here, what we should do and what the whole meaning of life is. 
Of course, this also means that if one explanation right, it naturally follows that all the rest must be wrong. Faiths have traditionally used violence and legal suppression as a means to assert their superiority – their truth – so maybe it’s time to find a new, more civilised way for them to confront one another. 
After all, debate is a great civilising force. When conducted in a robust but courteous manner, it can lead to people with radically different views to understand and engage with one another, as well as challenge their own assumptions. 
Multiculturalism has failed so badly because it tries to run from this – at its most idealistic it believes that there are different truths and all of them are just as valid. The trouble is this is nonsense even on its own terms – if there’s no absolute truth, then the idea that there’s no absolute truth cannot be absolutely true.
This is a quite excellent idea, and upon brief reflection, its implementation would open up a number of rather interesting avenues of discussion.

First, it should be readily apparent that Mohammedanism, otherwise known as the political ideology of Islam, rapidly falls apart under any really rigourous cross-examination.

The "prophet" of Islam claimed to be the final and ultimate messenger of God. But he had enormous trouble converting followers to his cause initially, when he started his prophetic career in Medina- and that, by the way, is assuming that he even existed as he is depicted in canonical Islamic texts, which is by no means certain at all. He had these problems because Jews and Christians, having seen true prophets such as Moses and Elijah and Hosea and, of course, the Lord Christ, quite reasonably demanded proof by way of miracles performed by Mohammed.

That he did not perform any is well known- it says so, right there in the Koranic text, that whenever Jews and Christians demanded that he perform them in order to prove his credentials, so to speak, he simply dodged them by reaffirming his supposed status as God's messenger. He still claimed to be delivering the word of God in the form of the text of a book that supposedly has coexisted with God since the beginning of time- which, in reality, changes its contents to suit the needs of the prophet when he feels it to be convenient.

Simply put, under any kind of rigourous scrutiny, Islam just falls apart. And rightly so. As I have said many times and will continue to say, Islam is NOT a religion. It is an ideology- and as such, must be treated with every bit as much suspicion and hostility as socialism and fascism, with which it shares much in common.

Second, Hinduism, when subjected to the same kind of rigourous tests as proposed above, will face some serious problems. And the same is true of most Eastern religions, despite their many individual merits.

Hinduism's appeal lies primarily in the fact that it is a highly syncretic religion. Essentially it posits that there are many gods but only one God- and has absolutely no problem reconciling this statement internally. Each of the Lord-only-knows how many millions of deities within Hinduism- I remember one estimate coming in at something like thirty-three million Vedic gods- are all different aspects of Divine Power.

A natural consequence of this highly heterogeneous religion is that any number of truths are accepted as true. It is entirely possible to be a Hindu and believe in perpetual reincarnation. It is also possible to believe that there is a final destination after death. It is possible to believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God, while still worshipping Brahma and Vishnu and Shiva- despite everything that Christ very clearly stated about false gods.

Of course, as the Breitbart article says above, if everything is true, then nothing is true.

You simply cannot logically argue that black can be white if it so chooses to be. You cannot argue that the intersection of an empty set with a non-empty set is anything other than an empty set.

Third, a rigourous examination of Christian faith and doctrine is not only warranted, but should be welcomed.

Real Christians are very, very good at defending their faith. They have had nearly two thousand years' worth of practice. And that is because, as any reasonably unbiased outsider will be able to see and understand, the Christian faith is derived from what, as far as I can tell, appears to be an axiomatic structure of rules that are tested by both time and practice.

I do not pretend to be expert enough to understand Christianity in its fullness. I am but an ignorant heathen with a very poor knowledge of Scripture. Yet what little I have seen, combined with simple observations of the behaviour of real Christians on a daily basis, tells me that the deep and abiding faith that Christians have in Christ and the Lord God is founded upon something real- something amazing.

By all means, let us put the various religions of the world to the test. Let us see what faiths ennoble and uplift us, and which ones seek merely to subvert and corrupt us. Let us settle these age-old debates the way that free-thinking men should: through reason and open dialogue.

Of course, such disinfecting sunlight is exactly what the multiculturalists loathe with every fibre of their being. All the more reason, then, to shine the light of God upon them, and watch their tortured and absurd ideology shrivel up and burst into flames.

Comments

Popular Posts