Discover Top Posts Tagged with #michael sherlock

The first video is a show of dominance. It's like when a dog pisses to mark its territory.

The correct thing to do is clear them out, and turn the hoses on them if they refuse. But the British government knows who its master is.

#Islamophobiaphobia

#Michael A. Sherlock #Michael Sherlock #islam #this is islam #islamic supremacy #British caliphate #caliphate #islamification #islamophobiaphobia #islamophobia #religion is a mental illness #Youtube

Multiculturalism is a ‘sacred’ yet destructive leftist meme I still find difficult to criticize.

By: Michael Sherlock

Published: Oct 19, 2025

Multiculturalism is a ‘sacred’ yet destructive leftist meme I still find difficult to criticize. The difficulty isn’t intellectual, but emotional. I am an apostate from the left. Not just the left, but the hard, communist Left. I am a third-generation ex-communist raised by a card-carrying member of the Australian Communist Party. Like most children of religious parents, I was raised with our scriptures, beliefs, songs, holidays, sacred practices, but most significantly, I was raised with the leftist ideology, the seeds of which burrowed their way into my unformed mind and grew like an oak tree until I laboured to chop it down and design my own original internal landscape.

“Give me the child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” ~ Aristotle

Overcoming my childhood indoctrination has required me to take the path of most resistance and critically evaluate the claims which formed the emotional foundations of my very identity and my biased and distorted thought processes - not that we can ever truly rid ourselves of bias as a fact of the human condition, but my attempt to do so is where the pain and emotional suffering of cognitive dissonance attempted to coerce me back into the warm embrace of my indoctrinated delusions and pre-existing beliefs. This is the psychological suffering that imprisons many of us within the bounds of existing and even self-destructive belief structures. Most of us would rather ignore information and evidence that contradicts our existing beliefs because the mechanics of belief are so psychologically persuasive and coercive. Add to these internal pressures the immense and strict social pressures on the left and a person can end up spending their whole life lost in error. Fear. It is fear that prevents us from change and true individuation (psychological emancipation as authentic individuals).

“Where your fear is, there is your task.” ~ Carl Jung

This psychological phenomenon was documented by social psychologist Leon Festinger, the creator of the theory of cognitive dissonance. Festinger studied a UFO cult in the US whose end-times prophecy had failed and he arrived at the following conclusion:

‘A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defences with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view’.

Once the intoxication of my own ego and the paralysis of social and psychological fears of blasphemy and heresy against the left subsided, I was able to rationally and intellectually see the deception woven into the manipulative meme of multiculturalism. I could see the motte-and-bailey fallacy that acts as its marketing pitch distracting us from its duplicitous and divisive cultural and political infections. I could finally read the available data on the degradation of societies who have sanctified this meme to their own inevitable and suicidally empathetic decline. I was now able to discern the inherent chaos within a doctrine that erases the overarching cohesive mechanism of society only to replace it with a sectarian social structure governed by an authoritarian state, in which divided and separated segments of the society are all encouraged to run full speed in different directions, or at each other, thereby tearing apart the very fabric of society. I could finally logically assess the false claim that all cultures are equal and deserve equal respect, which is probably the most dangerous and immoral aspect of multiculturalism.

The Multicultural Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is an informal fallacy coined by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. He describes it in the following words:

A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

[The Bailey] represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed.

Philosopher Peter Boghossian describes the motte-and-bailey with respect to Woke words:

How is this informal fallacy employed by its proponents to gaslight and deceive both adherents and critics? Multiculturalism is sold as merely tolerance, understanding, and social cohesion through mutual respect. It is sold as something that good people promote and bad people criticize. These aspects and other marketing traits of multiculturalism act as its motte. Of course we want to live in harmoneous societies where different cultures share their positive qualities with one another. Of course we want every human being to be respected as an individual regardless of race and ethnicity. These things are very easy to defend. The bailey, however, is far more sinister and difficult to defend. The bailey is a two-tiered justice system that aggressively censors criticism of multiculturalism, demoralises and delegitimizes the majority population, infantilizes minorities and infects them with a false victimhood complex, enforces social cohesion upon pain of imprisonment and promotes immoral and barbaric minority cultural practices as being equally deserving of respect.

Multiculturalism and Islamism

It is multiculturalism’s cultural and moral relativism that causes western feminists to champion oppressively patriarchal Islamic practices in the name of feminism. It is this aspect of multiculturalism that causes the police to turn a blind eye and even assist in the mass gang rapes of 10s of thousands of British girls raped by Muslim Pakistani rape gangs. It is this aspect of the meme that causes the establishment and the mainstream media to cover up and hide serious crimes committed by minority groups and members for fear of offending this religiously venerated meme of multiculturalism, specifically, the coerced ‘social cohesion’ element of this meme. Even saying the word “Muslim” correctly and factually in this context causes me some degree of cognitive dissonance. If we are going to take the risk of criticising Islam and Muslims, we are supposed to only call them “Islamists” to avoid stigmatizing an entire and “equally valid” religious demographic, but we don’t need to apply this same caution to protect Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religious group when members of these other faiths misbehave. This is because Muslims have found the gate within the meme of multiculturalism and crafted their access key of “Islamophobia” to plug into it only to steer “multicultural societies” towards a rigid and conservative right-wing form of Islamic monoculturalism.

Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance

This exploitation of western tolerance by way of the meme of multiculturalism is made possible by what philosopher Karl Popper referred to as the ‘paradox of tolerance.’

“[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”

Put simply, by extending tolerance to the intolerant, we pave the way for the victory of intolerance, because the intolerant exploit the tolerance they are afforded to spread their own intolerance. Without reciprocity, tolerance is nothing less than the cowardly surrender to intolerance.

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” ~Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Multiculturalism vs Cultural Pluralism

Many leftists smear critics of multiculturalism as racists, bigots, fascists, Nazis, white supremacists, and the like. They say that critics of multiculturalism are typically white people who just want to live in white monocultural societies. This criticism - whilst holding an ever-shrinking kernel of truth because there is a nascent Woke Right fringe element in society that does want this - doesn’t explain the valid criticisms of multiculturalism expounded by non-white critics, or white liberal critics, who see practical dysfunctions with the doctrinal meme yet enjoy living in multi-ethnic societies. The easiest way to illustrate the inherent problems with multiculturalism is to contrast it against cultural pluralism, multiculturalism’s sober companion.

Multiculturalism and cultural pluralism are related concepts but have distinct meanings: Multiculturalism refers to a society where multiple distinct cultures coexist without a dominant culture, celebrating and preserving cultural diversity. Cultural pluralism, on the other hand, acknowledges the existence of a dominant culture while allowing minority cultures to coexist and maintain their unique identities. Multiculturalism emphasizes the recognition and protection of distinct cultural identities, whereas pluralism focuses on the acceptance and cooperation of diverse groups within a shared framework of core values. In summary, multiculturalism promotes a society without a dominant culture, while cultural pluralism allows for a dominant culture alongside minority cultures.

The cohesive mechanism in cultural pluralism remedies the dangerous chaos of multiculturalism whilst maintaining a cohesive brand of cultural diversity that does strengthen societies by drawing from the strengths of various cultural answers to various social problems.

I’ll finish with an analogy that will hopefully illustrate the core problem with multiculturalism and the key distinction between multiculturalism and cultural pluralism. If society is a train and each train car represents a sub-culture within a multi-ethnic society, then multiculturalism installs independent driving mechanisms in every single train car so that each car can independently decide which direction they’d like their individual yet interconnected train car to travel, irrespective of the direction the train is travelling as a whole. It is inevitable that different train cars will decide to travel in different directions, and so the train will, without fail, derail. Cultural pluralism protects the uniqueness of each train car whilst ensuring only the front car has the socially contracted capacity to drive the train in a united, cohesive and coherent direction. In a culturally pluralistic democracy, each individual member of every car is also given access to the train’s schedule and stops and can have their democratic input with respect to the direction of the train, which ensures that society stays on track and moves forward in a united and progressive direction.

If we want western democracies to stay on the tracks and not crash and burn, we are going to have to suffer the social and psychological slings and arrows that inescapably accompany the courageous endeavour of critically examining our own biases and overcome our own brainwashing and tribal indoctrination. We must learn to truly think for ourselves as individuals. There is no easier way so save society from the chaos and destruction created by the manipulative meme of multiculturalism.

#Michael A. Sherlock #Michael Sherlock #multiculturalism #multiculturalism has failed #pluralism #cultural pluralism #cultural relativism #moral relativism #western democracy #paradox of tolerance #Motte and Bailey #Motte and Bailey fallacy