Any ideology by definition is against its opposite because ideology assumes conviction. To stand for something, by definition, means to stand against the opposite of that very thing.Multiculturalism is the one ideology that is a non-ideology because there is nothing it is against, and therefore by definition nothing it is for. It asserts that everything is of equal value, so by extension there is no point in discerning the positive or negative merits of anything- therefore, it is based on no value system at all.
Ironically, multiculturalism is itself a unicultural phenomenon, as it is practiced firmly in the Western world. A Westerner may travel to most any nation in the world, and experience the specific culture of the nations they visit. A visit to Uzbekistan will procure the experience of a fully Uzbek culture, a visit to India, Ethiopia, or Thailand will procure the experience of each nation’s respective religions, norms, and customs, and it is up to the visitor to understand “when in Rome.” For example, a visit to a firmly Islamic nation like Saudi Arabia by a Western female would come with the expectation that she cover up. This is because Saudi Arabia, being fully Islamic, stands for Islamic codes of dress and therefore by definition stands against non-Islamic codes of dress.
For the traveler, to empathetically proclaim “when in Rome” while visiting the multitude of monoculture nations across the world, while expecting no such standards for the West, is cognitive dissonance and cultural masochism. Why is it, exactly, that some expect no concessions by other nations to tailor their culture to ours, yet feel unease with western culture standing in its own conviction? Do we ourselves no longer have a Rome? If Western culture has come to becoming ‘multi-culture’ then the core belief is that there no belief at all- that our value system is that we have no value system.
Furthermore, this absolute relativism then absolves the practitioner of moral standards and comparative knowledge of various cultures. To know one’s culture is to know what one’s culture isn’t. Universal unconditional acceptance means there is not even an attempt to discern any human conduct through the lens of any moral standards. Therefore, it is rooted in ignorance masquerading as morality. The irony then, is that the immoral is given a free pass by those who believe that judging its immorality is an immoral act in itself, when indeed the truth is quite the opposite, one must judge the immoral in order to stand up for morality. By the same token, tolerance is only real when intolerance is itself not tolerated. True tolerance is against intolerance, and to be against anything means one has taken a stance, and to take any stance at all is the opposite of multiculturalism.
Just as it has been said a group is as strong as its weakest link, so is a multicultural “culture” (which is in essence ‘non-culture’) Sure, equal rights for all citizens is a tenet accepted in a multicultural society, but so are cultures of misogyny and homophobia, ie unequal rights. If these are at all tolerated, then the multi-culture has in fact endorsed misogyny and homophobia. Therefore it is a race to the bottom. Tolerance that accepts intolerance is a contradiction. Morality that accepts immorality is a contradiction. Multiculturalism is therefore a contradiction and a fallacy.
Since multiculturalism judges not, it descends into its lowest common denominator, as it accepts everything from the best to the worst the world has to offer, the worst then firmly has a comfortable home. This then means, that multiculturalism tolerates and by extension implicitly condones the very endarkened ideologies that self-proclaimed liberals claim to be against.
Many aspects of culture are indeed relative, subjective and a matter of opinion, such as food and dress. The hard pill to swallow for the relativists is that many aspects of culture can be ascertained objectively. Sam Harris discusses this eloquently in this Ted Talk.
A people’s mass psyche based on their cultural philosophies, religion and assumptions necessarily correlate to higher or lower degrees of literacy, higher or lower degrees of gdp per capita, higher or lower degrees of violence against women, of equality or scientific achievements.
Accomplishment is not a “social construct.”
A society that values equality and humanism will necessarily produce more opportunity for women, homosexuals and other traditionally oppressed peoples. A society that values secularism and science will necessarily produce more scientific accomplishments. Conversely, a society that values the literal interpretation of Bronze Age desert mythologies will necessarily produce results that echo those very societies’ ‘holy books’ are meant to produce- that of patriarchy and superstition. A multicultural society, giving equal space to both, necessarily promotes the latter by accepting it, and therefore is fundamentally against what it is against- humanism, secularism, liberty and equality.
The French Revolutionaries- true Left Wingers if there ever were any, were Republican- and therefore anti-monarchy. In a turning point of history that led to the creation of the modern secular nation state, they led the cry of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” By definition then, they were against tyranny, inequality and division, because to stand up for left wing ideals means to stand up against their opposites.
This is why the Left in the 21st century is due for a much needed reformation. It’s time to realize that multiculturalism, and its tool- political correctness, are not fundamentally left wing precepts, that the left must be willing to stand for its values, thereby standing against the opposite of its values, even if that means being politically incorrect.
In mainstream political discourse, it is only conservatives that rally against multiculturalism. Backing this conviction, is the conviction that the West must defend its whiteness and its Christianity against other races and Islam- stoking a crusade like mentality and heating up the neo-nazi backlash sure to arise in response to failed multiculturalism. If the left does not have the direction and will to fill the void, the right will surely take it. The left has lost its way and has become regressive, totally blind to the fallacies of multiculturalism and giving the only space of critiquing it to the racist right.
The time has come for a left-renaissance, for the left to find its bearings, realize what it is actually FOR and work to establish a society truly based on tolerance, by decisively choosing to be intolerant towards intolerance itself. It’s time the left take back the narrative from the right and to become the non-politically correct, non-multicultural left wing. It is only this way the left will be saved from itself. Otherwise, it will vis-à-vis multiculturalism cannibalize itself and the only defenders of western culture will be the right wing, in which case Europe and the US shall descend into cultures glorifying racism and Christianity rather than equality and secular humanism.
This means It is imperative for the left undergo this renaissance so that when multiculturalism fails, it can provide the vision for the new way, and have something meaningful to ideologically compete with the racist right-wing. Furthermore, the intellectual space must become available for left-leaning intellectuals who see the ills of PC culture and relativism to congregate and find purpose in the left lest they find no other outlet than in the right-wing movements.
Left vs Right anti-multiculturalism
What does left-wing anti-multiculturalism looks like?
We can look at the insights of the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond to gain insight into the true cause of Western dominance of the intellectual sphere in history. It insightfully points to meaningful factors other than racial superiority that contributed to the rise and dominance of the West. These factors include the geography of Europe, which facilitated the growth of multiple cultures within a relatively small space which spurred high degrees of competition and therefore incentives to innovate-rather than isolated cultures that were not as hard pressed by neighbors to compete technologically. Also, the amount of domesticable animals native to Europe, the Middle East and North Africa was much greater than in Sub Saharan Africa or the Americas. This meant more intimate involvement with various animals and a long term development of immunity to diseases like smallpox. So, when Europeans, with their resistance to germs and their war technology developed by generations of fierce competition with close-by neighbors, adventures into the rest of the world, superior firepower and a natives’ lack of resistance to diseases allowed Europeans to dominate.
This is extremely relevant because it counters the racist claims that European dominance is due to inherent superiority, and is instead due to geographical determinism. The future then can be such that we provide an empathetic shining light to eventually enlighten the world in a global round table, rather than perpetuate the need to dominate. To recognize the inherent potential of all the races on earth and to view them with empathy is to recognize that human civilization can advance further without separating the races and fostering racial neurosis. Instead, left-wing nationalism can be applied that creates a monocultural yet multiracial society.
While right-wing nationalists focus on a mythologized racial narrative, left-wing nationalists can espouse enlightenment values and humanism, while insisting that any race is perfectly welcome so long as they adhere to these values.
This expression of left wing values degrades any regressive-left calls of “racism” when Islamism is criticized, because a humanist monoculture would happily accept any enlightened secular Arab or African over any white Islamist. Such epithets as “racism” towards those who criticize Abrahamic doctrines on philosophical grounds are indeed insulting to the secular Arabs who have suffered punishment for their atheism.
The right confuses multi-racialism with multiculturalism. The left confuses multiculturalism for tolerance. Only the new left, once its renaissance has blossomed, will unapolagetically refuse multiculturalism, yet happily include the various races. Only they will refuse to tolerate intolerance. It is imperative then that would be immigrants are neither xenophobically rejected, nor welcomed unquestionably with closed eyes. To become a citizen must mean to join into the social contract of the land and therefore to be allegiant to the secular liberal values of the land.
The impulse of natural leftists is to protect minorities. This is fully well-intentioned and borne from sincere empathy. If good intentions are not paired with reason, however, fallacies, contradictions and unintended consequences emerge. To defend minorities is noble. Yet, what if the majority of a nation adhere to secular humanist values of equality and a minority culture within the nation adheres to misogyny, homophobia and bigotry? This is the paradox that can only be unwoven through careful reason and careful reason concludes that such a minority must not be given space to project their cultural values onto society, since their culture values themselves are bigoted. This is a nuance all too many on the regressive left simply do not get.
This will be difficult for many on the left to accept. But to those who are rational and who see the fallacies of the regressive left, this new renaissance will be the only savior of enlightened civilization.