Our most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again." Thomas Hylland Eriksen (2008)
It would be wrong to say that an average American or Western Europe man is happy with the values of modern liberalism imposed on him. The atmosphere of intolerance to everything that goes beyond the mainstream of politics is primarily intended to marginalize the dissidents. In this light, Western democracy little differs from any authoritarian regime it opposes.
Nevertheless, politicians need to win elections by all means - the end justifies the means in this war. One of the most efficient methods is to replace own population that does not vote for liberals with a population that would do it. In 1965, a new Immigration Act was passed in U.S. It fundamentally changed the ethnic and cultural staff of immigrants and marked the beginning of the epoch of multiculturalism.
Before 1960s, the main flow of immigrants into U.S. was from European countries, while after the Immigration Act, Latin American flooded into U.S. It was mainly poorly educated and low qualified immigrants who became the main recipients of social benefits. These benefits were one of the ways to control voters. Actually, more secured conservative citizens had to feed an army of dependents on the government who faithfully voted for liberals. Those who opposed such state of affairs were immediately labeled racists (perhaps because some people think a ‘dependent’ is a race).
Yes, but U.S. is a country of immigrants… Not exactly this way. The idea of an immigrant has changed dramatically over the last two centuries. Earlier, an immigrant had no guarantees from the state and could rely on his own forces only. In this light, the settlers in Siberia were “immigrants” too - they settled in the land awaiting settlement and reclaimed it. The present-day immigrants arrive in the countries that are developed much better than their home countries. Yet, this nuance in the modern debate on migrations is not mentioned. This is the way things are done.
Therefore, it is not so right to call U.S. a country of immigrants. It is rather a country of settlers. It is one thing when people arrive in a country relying on their own forces only, build cities and reclaim lands, and it is quite another thing when they arrive to live on social benefits.
Previously migrants had to integrate and assimilate into a local culture within short period of time due to economic reasons. Today migrants avoid such inhumane attitude. Furthermore, the indigenous population has to get used to the traditions and moral system of the remote countries where civilization lags behind their countries. Multiculturalism has led to a situation when European culture can be only blamed, amid positive attitude to all the other cultures.
For instance, in Colorado a pastry-chef refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage for his religious conviction. The court ruled it illegal and fined him for $135,000. In Illinois, two sellers refused to supply alcohol to a buyer again for their religious conviction and were dismissed. The court ruled that the sellers should be paid a $240,000 compensation. The only difference between these two cases is that the pastry-chef was a Christian, while the sellers were Muslims.
Non-European cultures perceive such things as extreme weakness and a green light for more decisive steps. Perhaps, it is the case. A logical result of this will be a change of the population and culture, which may happen much sooner than many think. There are precedents. Look at Lebanon (previously known as Switzerland of the Middle East) and RSA. The recent incident with Ahmed Mohamed, a schoolboy, is very illustrative. The boy bought old electronic clock, removed the mechanism, and built it into a small case, which very much resembled a clock-operated bomb. He brought his homemade clock to school and showed his engineering teacher, who congratulated him but advised him "not to show any other teachers". The boy showed his clock to other teachers too. Eventually he plugged the lock in and set the alarm that beeped during the lesson. The teacher called the police and the boy was arrested. The press responded immediately to the discrimination towards a genius boy that became a victim to racism and Islamophobia. Under the hashtag "#IstandwithAhmed," thousands of Twitter users praised the boy's initiative and questioned why the boy was detained.
Obama invited the young genius to the White House. Mark Zuckerberg invited him to Facebook Office, Brin to Google, UN to its headquarters. A week after the incident, the boy was offered free education opportunities at MIT, Yale, or Harvard.
In 2007, Harvard University Professor Robert Putnam – one of the key ideologists of multiculturalism and population diversification (for which he was awarded in Sweden – I will return to this later) – published his survey on the difference of the people living in multinational and mono-cultural communities. It turned out that despite expectations multiculturalism affects social trust. Residents of diverse communities among others "don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions, the only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.” Putnam found out that people in diverse communities feel themselves less happy and assess the quality of their life lower than others do.
Actually, in multi-cultural communities or cities people live more isolated from others and avoid contacts with the external world. People in Los Angeles, the most diverse city in U.S., trust each other less than people in any other cities do. Meantime, more conservative Sates like Montana and Wyoming have more solidary residents (the crime rate in the given States is one of the lowest in U.S. and can be compared with Japan, a mono-culture state, where murder rate is lower than in U.S. 16-fold).
However, such surveys have in no way affected the liberal policy of U.S. and European countries. Liberals do not care for facts. They just care for their intentions and opinions. Here is an egregious example of that liberalism. Nearly 1400 teens, mainly girls from English families, were subjected to sexual abuse within 16 years. It happened, as the violence came from the local Pakistani Diaspora and the Police closed eyes on it for the fear of being slammed for racism.
What could overpower the self-preservation instinct of the society, even such strong one as protection of children and women? No one could face prison or even a fine. They just feared that the “Police of Political Correctness” may destroy their careers and make them “political outcasts.” Actually, the social reality is much important for the people than the reality. For many people the argument “it is so as everyone knowns that it is so” is stronger than any fact. They are so afraid for their social status that it outweighs any problems others may face.
Anyway, the Western political class takes advantage of such peculiarities of human mind. Sweden, once one of the wealthiest and safest countries, has opened its borders, but not to everyone. For instance, migrants from Somalia, Ethiopia, or Iraq can get a residence permit much easier than highly – qualified specialists from more developed countries (especially if they have the wrong skin color). At the moment, every seventh resident of Sweden was born outside EU. This has become possible within few decades. The country is on the third place in the world by the high rate of rapes (after RSA and Botswana). The rapes are committed mainly not by the emasculated Swedish men. Perhaps, all this is for demonstrating the world their nobility and commitment to progressive values, even at the expense of the future of their children.
However, Western elites do not destroy the culture of their countries only. For instance, Japan is constantly pressed for its immigration policy (in 2012, the country gave shelter only to 18 refugees, while U.S. received 76,000 people). The pressure on Japan is not just at the official level. Many activists and ‘think tanks’ are trying to affect the public awareness in Japan and make it more tolerant and multi-cultural. Why does U.S. want Japan to become a multi-culture country? Does it have any problems with doing business? Does Japan fail to support U.S. political initiatives? Maybe Japan is at a very low level of social and economic development and it is necessary to bring progress and education to it. Maybe it is because of the same reason why a vegan tries to persuade his friends that the only right way to live is to be a vegan…
The declared value and equality of different cultures destroys and washes them away in practice. It has become impolite in U.S. to wish Merry Christmas, it is necessary to wish ‘happy weekend’ not to offence anyone. In Sweden a lesbian-bishop (which is an oxymoron of itself) suggests removing church crosses to make the country more attractive for Muslims. Illegal immigrants must no longer be called as such. They are now “undocumented” immigrants. In ten years Germany may no longer be a country of order and welfare, which has made it attractive to many tourists. Japan’s unique culture may be replaced with urbanistic mass on the example of Los Angeles. And the quality of Toyota made in Japan may no longer differ from the quality of the American or French cars. Yet, the Asian countries so fare politely decline the idea of multiculturalism. Maybe this is what makes their history thousands-year-old.
Inherently, the people trusting in multiculturalism do not recognize the value of any cultures and traditions, which well fits into the liberal ideology where the main value is the autonomy of an individual. However, an individual cannot exist beyond civilization. Therefore, “deconstruction of the majority” may turn into “deconstruction of civilization” and replacement with another majority with quite different values where liberalism will have no place. After all, the reality severely punishes those who live in an invented world.
Yevgeny Rublev: United States or Global Cultural Revolution. Breakdown of Traditions, Part 1
Yevgeny Rublev: United States or Global Cultural Revolution. Part 2. Liberalism vs. Conservatism
Yevgeny Rublev: United States or Global Cultural Revolution. Part 3. Democracy
