The West Becoming Small

by Glenn Fairman1/9/16

Multi-culturalism is the perversion of tolerance to the nth degree. It is rooted in the worldview that “lifestyles” are solely matters of taste. Moreover, it is at peace with the perspectival nature of truth–the abnegation of truth itself.

If true, then philosophy is dead. Bludgeoned… as all ideas and wisdom become quaint by-products of historical currency. If no truth can withstand the corrosive effect of post-modernity, yea, if no truth can even be said to exist, then the hive’s frontier lies before us as our wages of faithlessness. Affirming no cause other than negotiating the great tide world tide of passion, multi-culturalism is a sham religion of man ascendant– yet a creed of man made infinitely small– no longer able to discern the distinctively human moral firewalls of praise and blame.

Since it can affirm no truth, in the final accounting it will not even save itself from the barbarian even now frothing at the gates.


Glenn Fairman writes from Highland, Ca.
About Author  Author Archive  Email

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (858 views)

Share
Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

retired
This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The West Becoming Small

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Some barbarians are indeed frothing at our gates, but far too many are already inside. Recent articles have reported that the coordinated attacks reported in Cologne New Year’s Eve (though the authorities tried to cover them up, assuaging Muslim sensitivity being more important to them than protecting their own citizens) also happened in at least 4 other German cities (Bielefeld, Frankfurt am Main, Hamburg, and Stuttgart) as well as 2 Austrian ones (Salzburg and Vienna), as well as Zurich, Helsinki, and the Swedish city of Kalmar. A small German community on the Swiss border reported 3 Muslims attacking 2 teen-age girls. And, of course, there are already rape problems in Malmo in Sweden as well as Oslo and Stavanger in Norway.

    The GOP needs to go after the Demagogues full tilt on this. Muslim immigration, and the multiculturalism that abets their lack of assimilation into modern society instead of their pre-medieval misogyny, is the true war on women. The Demagogues are eager to bring in more Muslims — which inevitably means more attacks on Jews, more attacks on women. and more attacks on anyone who says anything critical of Islam or Mohammed (not that liberals object to the last problem).

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Well said as usual, Glenn. But we shouldn’t take excellence as a given anywhere we find it in this degraded West. So we appreciate when you contribute to it, manning the oars of the ship-of-culture and stroking one against many.

    The rebuttal would be something like: Well, we don’t discriminate. We don’t hate. We’re for diversity, equality, and sensitivity.

    But that’s a mantra that breeds and invokes the stupid…stupefaction, if you will. We know that this pleasing, self-deluding mantra has its fixed set of villains and heroes, and the determination of such has nothing to do with “diversity, equality, and sensitivity.” Ask those bakers in Oregon how much “sensitivity” and “diversity” they ran into.

    So what we can say is that “Progressivism” is, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out before he surrendered in the culture wars, “friendly fascism.” And it’s not all that friendly if you ask me.

    So how do we parse right and wrong if we do not wish to use the template of Marx, seeing everything through the dynamics of oppressor/oppressed with the metrics being race, sex, and class? How to eclipse the madness of the lens many are currently seeing through?

    It will be a long road back to normalcy for the West, if we indeed ever get there. I submit this task is made all the more difficult by legions of “conservatives” who spontaneously vote “Republican” and are as caught on the treadmill of pop culture as the pink-haired queer marching in his rainbow parade.

    Analyzing first principles is one thing we do here. And it can be a shock to many just how much of the noxious fluff they have imbibed.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Liberal sensitivity is based on who is the underdog and who is the “overdog” — or, as one blogger put it, an oppressed/oppressor dichotomy. Furthermore, their standard is America as they see it. Furthermore, only one party in any situation merits this sensitivity, and that will be the biggest underdog. Thus it is that the “war on women” party is more concerned about the wounded feelings of Muslims than the women raped by too many of those Muslims and is more concerned with the wounded feelings of the “transgendered” than the girls who encounter them where they shouldn’t have to.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Once one is in a narrow paradigm of prejudice — whether obsessing over skin color as inferior or supposed “white oppressors” (in that case, white skin color is inferior) — history has proven it’s danged difficult for people to lay aside these prejudices.

        Particularly sensitive and galling to the Progressive shtick is that they think they are the nicest people in the world. Prejudiced? Moi? And they have the puppets to prove it: homosexuals, muslims, Mother Gaia, and the homeless.

        That they make life worse for all these (or the victims of these…victims of Muslims, for example) does not penetrate their thick egos and vaunted sense of moral superiority.

        • JNagarya says:

          Mmm, yes, you project the very attitude you condemn.

          As for the barbarians at — or inside — the gates, we don’t have to go so far as Muslims (the post-Cold War substitute punching-bag for “Commies”). The armed anti-gov’t gang in Oregon that hides behind the terms “militia” and “patriot” is a gang of functionally-illiterate barbarians.

          They are also that characterized by the Founders: common criminals engaged in treason: those who take up arms against Constitution and gov’t — rule of law — based upon blatant distortions of selective fragments of the Constitution.

          But they get no mention as object of deserved attack because not “Liberal” (or other detested one-dimensional labels).

          Multiculturalism = the United States at the time of its founding. By contrast, monopolies are tyrannies which dictate only one “right” way to believe — as opposed to freedom of thought. Republican Mark Twain made the point this way:

          “This is the country of those three great freedoms: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them.”

          And, yes, lifestyles are a matter of choice. As example, some choose to kid themselves that they are anti-elitist — while elevating that snobbery to their own specialized elitism.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            The armed anti-gov’t gang in Oregon that hides behind the terms “militia” and “patriot” is a gang of functionally-illiterate barbarians.

            This is what is known as “deflecting.” Those programmed by the Left can never admit that Islam is a problem so they deflect and say “But what about…fill in the blank.”

            I don’t know the full scoop in Oregon. But it seems those people have some legitimate gripes with the bully state. That was the opinion of a friend of mine who is by no means a conservative but lives in Oregon and is informed on the subject. Good Lord, man, this country was founded upon “anti-government” sentiments. We threw the bully British out. What weird universe does one come from when opposing overreaches by government brands one as a crazy? Why put yourself in the back pocket of government? I suspect you’re a government employee of some type which is typically the case.

            Regarding the Mark Twain quote (never heard of him referred to as a Republican before), don’t confuse a quip from a celebrity with wisdom.

            And I supposed I can’t fault you for your defense of multiculturalism because I doubt you understand what that term means. In practice it means no commonality of purpose or identity as a nation. People are instead encouraged to identify with their race, gender, or class. And that is a regression to a primitive, tribal attitude. That has produced many noxious effects. Our motto is “E Pluribus Unum” which means “out of many, one.” What multiculturalism aims to do is fracture us all and set us against each other.

            If you want to don a Superman costume and believe you are a super-hero, then by all means do so. We might call that “Chasing the American Dream” (or delusion). And that’s fine. But if you try to fly off of a building, be ready for a splat. And I’m not paying your hospital bills. The difference between chasing the American Dream and multiculturalism is that the multiculturalists demand that reality itself be overturned to support whatever belief one wishes to hold….and that we all have to finance it.

            So by all means, choose whatever damn lifestyle you want. But there is still an objective reality, and I would say a set of objective morals, that still must prevail….or else we get caught in screwball loops of insanity such as pretending the Bruce Jenner is now a woman instead of a mentally disturbed man in need of help (assuming he’s not just doing this for money).

            • JNagarya says:

              It is known as FACT.

              READ the Constitution — and compare it with their claims about it.

              Or must I hold your hand by again posting the relevant provisions governing the militia?

              And again: name-calling isn’t argument. But it’s all those who do it have.

              Clue: the law is neither “Liberal” nor “Conservative” — law is not to be confused for politics. The law being the issue, I am not the issue — nor are your favorite dirty word/insult punching bag “Liberal” as concerns the actual contents of the Constitution.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            A most impressive display of error and prejudice — unsurprising from a liberal.

            Note that many conservatives have commented on the Oregon incident, and no one seems to agree with the Bundy group. They do think they have legitimate grievances (which they do, and even some liberals have admitted this). The original gripe is that the Hammonds were charged with “terrorism” for setting a pair of fires on their own land (for practical reasons) that got out of control and burned some federal land as well. Note that many conservatives who opposed the Occupiers agreed with a few of their complaints (particularly concerning crony capitalism, that favorite pastime in Versailles-on-the-Potomac), and likewise with Black Shakedowns Matter.

            Note that the Bundys have injured no one and inflicted no known property damage — unlike the Occupiers, the union thugs in various disputes a few years back, Black Shakedowns Matter, and a sizable number of Muslim terrorists. Even a liberal ought to be able to see the difference, though few do.

            As for multiculturalism, that doesn’t involve a mix of political ideologies, as you seem to imply, but a mix of cultures. The US was definitely not multicultural in its early years (the Indians were separate, and driven further away over time). If you like the Muslim belief that apostates and blasphemers should be killed, and their belief in honor killings for disobedient girls and women, and their propensity for rape, then by all means let your neighborhood be overrun by them.

            As for Mark Twain, you do know he was a staunch misanthrope, don’t you? My 11th grade literature text pointed this out in discussing an excerpt from Huckleberry Finn (the failed attempt at a lynching). That somewhat colors such arguments as the one you cite.

            • JNagarya says:

              Name-calling isn’t argument. In fact, it’s unintelligent. But, there you are . . .

              • Timothy Lane says:

                The great bulk of my comments here are factual observations, which you very carefully ignore in your psittacine trolling. I’ve seen this before; a liberal starts out with something that has a (small) point, though basically parroting the Party Line. But then you resort to personal attacks — and nothing else. Go back under your bridge.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            Multiculturalism = the United States at the time of its founding.

            You are singularly ignorant as regards how the word “multiculturalism” is used today, or you are dishonest.

            The most basic unit of a culture is its language. And the vast majority of those living citizens of United States at the time of its founding spoke English. Those who did not speak it, by in large, learned it. There was no, “numero dos para Espanol.”

            The founding documents were written in English. The statutes were written in English. The courts were held in English. They were not printed in 50 different languages for those who recently arrived or were too lazy to learn the language.

            The structure of government took that of Great Britain as a starting point and improved it. The philosophy of government drew heavily from British political philosophers, especially Locke, and Montesquieu who was greatly influenced by the British political philosophers. They didn’t resort to Kung Fu Zu’s “Analects” for guidance.

            The vast majority of inhabitants of the USA were Christian, mainly Protestants. There were no Muslims, that I ever heard of.

            lifestyles are a matter of choice

            What a puerile observation. You complain about “one-dimensional” labels, yet have no problem using such labels when it suits you.

            In any society, personal choice is, to one degree or another, somewhat constrained. One would need to expand on the term “lifestyles” to discuss intelligently.

            • JNagarya says:

              The way you folks use the word “multiculturalism” is the lie. And it is based squarely upon racism.

              The fact is that the preachers of the “American Dream” insist one can be anything one wants. _Ergo_, one can choose one’s lifestyle — it needn’t be that inculcated in one by one’s parents. It’s called “free will” and “freedom of thought and conscience”.

              The puerility is in the constant name-calling and demonization based upon blatant supremacism based upon the most vile of racist propaganda.

              You and your reactionary faction do not, that is, have any authority to dictate what others’ lifestyle/s style can or cannot be. The effort to do so is unadulterated bigotry.

              Nor have you though authority to dictate to others what is “right” thinking. The effort to do so is that of the tyrant.

              The name-calling by your extremist faction is the bulk of your “discourse”; and that in itself is at best junior high school level. Calling people names — especially when they don’t apply — is not persuasive. It doesn’t make friends. It is arrogant and exclusive. Again — in a word:

              Bigotry.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                The name-calling by your extremist faction is the bulk of your “discourse”; and that in itself is at best junior high school level. Calling people names — especially when they don’t apply — is not persuasive. It doesn’t make friends. It is arrogant and exclusive

                Yet those who disagree with you are racists and bigots and belong to a reactionary faction. You truly are obtuse.

                Your little rant is sophomoric and something which could only be thought serious by a very confused mind.

                As a means of enlightenment and improvement, your education has clearly been a bust. Your lack of logic and detachment from reality clearly display this to be so.

                That creatures such as yourself can learn to parrot meaningless tripe learned from their intellectual superiors is clear from your ability to intersperse your diatribe with leftist cliche’s such as, “unadulterated bigotry, blatant supremacism, racist propaganda, extremist faction and exclusive.” Did I mention “bigotry?”. But it also shows you are simply a caricature with the depth of a cardboard cutout, with apologies to cardboard.

                Let me try to come down to your level,

                “Joseph want a cracker?”

  3. Glen WIsneski says:

    It is the societal version of the sports phenomenon of “Playing Down To The Competition”…………….

  4. GHG says:

    The psychological projection is strong in this one. The hypocrisy afforded by this affliction is both entertaining and disturbing. Entertaining as it’s fun to poke holes in their so called argument. Disturbing because the programmed scotoma blinds them from the truth and they actually believe what they shout. It’s sad, and dangerous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *