#monoculturalism

[burnitalldownism]

I’ve started commenting “Thanks monoculturalism!!!” on every article I come across about white on white crime in Western countries and it’s making racists sooooooooo angry.

I think it makes as much sense as the garbage I’ve to read every time a non-white person gets a speeding ticket 💁‍♂️

[burnitalldownism]

I'm gonna start blaming every single crime involving white citizens of mostly white countries on monoculturalism. Makes about as much sense as all the racist dog whistling I can't escape from 🤷‍♂️

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Konstantin Kisin: Now, as to multiculturalism, and I think this is really important that we get the definitions of these words right, particularly here in Australia, because I get a slight sense that you use that word in a different way to us.

Here is what I think we ought to mean when we use these terms. We are living in multithnic societies. That means that we have people from different backgrounds, different ethnicities who may have been born or whose parents may have been born in other places who look different. And those societies, I actually think, have the potential to be stronger than monoethnic societies in some ways. Even in biology is this concept of hybrid vigor. When you have racial mixing, it produces offspring that has the benefits of both sides. So the idea that we need an ethnostate that is entirely monolithic I think is excessive.

Our societies that have a mixture of people can be very successful and very cohesive if we take the best from the different cultures and the different backgrounds people. We have the talented people who've come from all over the world to our societies to contribute.

But the only way that works is that we have monoculturalism. Not multiculturalism where everyone is encouraged to stick to their own and think the way that their parents thought in the country from which they came. It works if there's an overarching identity and we say I may have been born in Russia, you may have been born in Australia. Suella Braverman was born in London but her parents were born in different parts of the world and we all come to Britain and we become British.

It does not mean that we must force people to reject their heritage at the door. But what it does mean is, as my parents said to me, you know, I remember when I came to school in the UK, my parents discovered that there was a clique of Russian speakers that I started hanging out with. And they said to me, well, in that case, we're going to have to move schools. And I, what do you mean? I've just found these friends. And they were like, look, you didn't come here to be a Russian in Britain. You came here to become part of this society.

And multiculturalism has failed because it has failed to recognize the difference between a multithnic society where everyone is encouraged to become one thing and a society where we have no desire for you to integrate. You want to speak a different language, fine. You want to practice a completely different cultural set of values and beliefs about all sorts of different issues that actually matter, fine. You want to have a a different approach to, you know, you you want to start advocating for a different legal system in our society, fine. You want to undermine the very basic values of of the way that we do things, fine. You want to live entirely within a community that looks like you and speaks a different language and and is completely ghettoized, fine.

This doesn't work. It doesn't work. And it creates tensions between ethnic groups. And so this conversation about multiculturalism is going to be become particularly strong in countries like Britain, France. I mean Sweden has gone very far down the route of allowing people simply to come and live in parallel societies.

Multiculturalism has failed because it cannot work. It simply cannot work. And in fact, it's, you know, coming back to our conversation about Russia, this is by no means me saying we should be emulating Russia, but actually this idea of, kind of having an overarching identity probably works better in Russia at this point when you have Muslim populations and populations from other religious backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds who are much more integrated in some ways. They may live in their own parts of the country historically that were theirs, but they they would see themselves as part of the Russian project. In a way that many people in some communities in the west do not.

[hyperions-fate]

As much as I sympathise with attempts to defend the legitimacy of Scots and improve recognition of it as a language, I'm also wary of those who seek to conflate it with Scottish identity more broadly. There's a vague sense, particularly within Nationalist discourse, that it, and it alone, is the marker of an 'authentic' and 'indigenous' Scottish culture. This, naturally, is nonsense. And it's particularly reactionary nonsense, as it serves to exclude or diminish the polphony of international influences, especially from generations of Irish immigrants, that have shaped and moulded all Scottish languages and cultures.

[burnitalldownism]

Thanks monoculturalism 🙄

[disinformer]

Witchpunk: The Sub-Genre We Need

Originally published at Modern Mythology The sub-genres of -punk have not always had a great history of living up to their names. The aesthetics get hijacked and commercialized, the narratives sanitized and made sheepish. The struggles between the marginalized and their environment — which it...

http://disinfo.com/2017/10/witchpunk-sub-genre-need/

[aramhadjinsi]

Monocultural societies are the ones like the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the last century, the ones that attempte to create an empire of “one race”

The third reich, also a good example of an attempt to create a monocultural society.

[alzati-prometeo-blog]

Should an individualist care about his culture?

Doesn't it seem like a contradiction? An individualist, after all, only cares of himself and his work, which he performs, like Howard Roark in The Fountainhead, at any expense and to the best of his abilities. At no point in that book did the character stop and bemoan how the culture of the left, the work of Ellsworth Toohey, hinders him in his endless research for perfection in architecture. Which, however, hardly means that no judgment is passed upon it in the text.

Multiculturalism, as part of modern left doctrine, arose afterwards. It is based on judging cultures not by their objective features, by the values they espouse and the policies that arise from them, but merely by their differences: any culture which is not our own is not ours to judge in the first place. As a matter of fact, even attempting to do so - which comes quite naturally when hearing about, let's say, genital mutilation in your neighborhood - is frowned upon. No one who isn't afraid of his own logical abilities should have a problem in seeing the fault in such behavior.

Just because a line of reasoning is faulty, however, doesn't mean that the result is wrong. If I say that is must be raining, because it's Thursday, that doesn't mean that the sun is shining instead. Is there a logical reason to wish for a multicultural society?

The culture of individual freedom, both to direct his life and to act on his property, is under a severe attack in western culture, one coming from a philosophical movement which is very western in itself, and which started much earlier than Marx. We can't argue that, by keeping our culture isolated, we would preserve it instead. I wouldn't even wish for a static culture where disagreement is frowned upon, and hierarchy is everything. Still, we can't argue that a society unwilling to pass judgment objectively on facts in the name of respect for other cultures - like having different laws for different people - is going to be capable of stability. What societal bond is going to be there to sustain those in need, since the state has so clearly shown to be incapable of it?

As a matter of fact, while individualism and freedom are not the only feature of western culture - nor do they only appear in it - they are to be found there, and they are a rare development, capable of moving cultures ahead in their technological and economical development at incredible speeds. To consider those cultures who are yet to encounter them - even as a minority movement - and who frown on the concept of them of equal worth to us means to commit a mistake, to accept an objectively false premise.

Does it mean that we should frown on immigration, judging people by their nationality first, collectivizing them into an abstract and thinking of them as elements of a group? Of course not. Immigration shaped the U.S. for more than a century, and it was completely unrestricted- what came out was not a society devoid of judgment.

Does it mean that we can cease thinking about the importance of (part of) european and american culture and philosophy as our defense of reason, and reject the idea of culture altogether in the name of our individuality, hoping to stay free by the power of our minds when force will be used against us? 

Preservation of culture is not the answer. You preserve what is dead. But we can set the path to our future culture - and beware of what influences us as we do.