What are your best arguments against multiculturalism?

Xihaon · 2021-01-27T01:59:11+00:00

When your government is based on a constitution, and the constitution is based on faith in human rights, and certain cultures don't believe in human rights, these cultures are destructive for your government. Countries based on a constitution, if they want to last, need ways to protect the faith in their founding principles.

A dictatorship can just ignore what certain cultures want and keep mercilessly enforcing the law, until all cultures become compatible with it. Just like a land shapes its inhabitants, a society shapes its members.

For a democracy, multiculturalism is perfectly fine, since chaos is its normal state. The land will, eventually, do what the society refuses to do.

So, multiculturalism would be OK for a dictatorship or a democracy, but is bad for constitution-based forms of government.

Markimus · 2021-01-27T11:35:32+00:00

It's literally just textbook divide and conquer, culturally/spiritually genocide a bunch of groups and pit them against each other so the ruling class can do whatever they want. Multiculturalism is actually just anti-culture and anti-human, its only purpose is to bolster capitalism and the financial class that rule the world.

pcpmasterrace · 2021-01-27T03:26:39+00:00

I don't agree with Dawkins' hard-atheism, but I do think the basic argument of The Selfish Gene explains much of society. People are fundamentally concerned with propagating their own genes, and they are much more willing to be generous toward people who share more genes with themselves. Nordic-style social democracy was only possible in homogenous countries full of intelligent people. As the Scandinavian countries start to look more like Brazil, so too does their economic model. With diversity, you get rampant corporate exploitation, wealth inequality, and widespread criminality and corruption.

RichtoffLud · 2021-01-27T03:07:13+00:00

Multiculturalism is the way to weaken and cease the culture of each country, with the objective of creating a unique, global culture, one culture in the western world. This destroys the sovereignty of the countries and makes the population without a perspective, a multicultural country is a defenseless country, and will become susceptible to any external ideologies.

This image says well the purpose of multiculturalism, which also includes immigrants and miscegenation. https://i.imgur.com/rMizIwM.jpg

aukofthecovenant · 2021-01-27T02:45:51+00:00

By "multiculturalism" I mean the view that large numbers of people from any two cultures, no matter how different, can live under the same government with as much or more harmony than there would be if there were only one culture. It cannot work because sometimes the government must take a side. For example:

"Bake the cake, bigot". Since the cake cannot be baked and also not baked, either the baker must be forcibly made unhappy or the gay couple must be forcibly made unhappy. If the baker had lived in a place where homosexuality was simply not tolerated, there would have been no problem. If the gay couple had lived where homosexuality was tolerated, there would have been no problem. Only because all three of them live where there are two parallel cultures that differ on the acceptance of homosexuality is there a problem.
France's burqa ban. Same thing. A woman cannot both wear a burqa and not wear a burqa at the same time, so a decision must be made. But someone will end up unhappy either way. This would not be a problem if the Muslims lived among only other Muslims.
Losing your head over free speech. Same thing, you can't draw Muhammad and not draw Muhammad at the same time, etc.

Rinse and repeat for year after year, with millions of people, and watch the unhappiness grow. Furthermore, for the goverment to enforce whatever decision it makes, it needs all the people under it to see it as legitimate. But that means it's asking for legitimacy from people who it is screwing over. That can't last forever. It also means that everyone has an incentive to fight and fight dirty for control of the government, the better to safeguard or impose their preferred culture. Who wouldn't want to live in a place where that happens?

You can see how the leftist position arises out of this situation. "If you just tolerate everything, there will never be any conflict!" They'll even make the tolerance compulsory.

Feelsgood · 2021-01-27T04:18:42+00:00

If diversity is such a strength then we would want to keep different cultures separated and unique.

Nasser · 2021-01-27T10:38:08+00:00

The best argument is mainly from the left itself in particular their hypocrisy. The Left often blames the French and English for the state of the Middle East with the Sykes Picot agreement. The issue was that this agreement arbitrarily divided the middle east ignoring ethnic and cultural lines. They admit that it was morally wrong for the Europeans to have divided the ME ignoring the ethnic lines but fail or rather ignore the implication that multiculturalism/multiracialism does not work. The same is also true for the division of the British Raj and the ethnic tension that followed.

Another argument against multiculturalism is that example of how the same group of people who call for it to be inflicted on White nations deny it on their own ethnostate.

https://i.redd.it/deffc12jcb051.jpg

https://files.catbox.moe/rcumtp.png

https://files.catbox.moe/7k0wpi.jpg

https://files.catbox.moe/dmq0yk.jpeg

https://files.catbox.moe/js7578.png

https://files.catbox.moe/dvihzm.png

https://i.redd.it/wsh3k6i8q4l41.png

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/fact-sheets/response-to-common-inaccuracy-bi-national-one-state-solution

EvilNick · 2021-01-27T13:02:05+00:00

the best argument is the one thats most evident. No matter how much you try and diversify an area people instinctively still just segregate themselves into small anti diverse of sameness. Its the reason there are black areas, little italys, small polish communities, etc. Look at latin/hispanic areas. People will almost always break themselves into small groups and inevitably start to dislike the others for various reason such as success, upkeep, "culture" (not really a thing TBH), attitudes, jealousy etc.

Am I against it, no. Am I for it, no.

Jacinda · 2021-01-27T14:39:30+00:00

I posted a link earlier to a review of a book by a liberal Harvard Professor which attempted to identify unique aspects of Western culture. I've reposted an edited version of my submission statement below.

[According to Henrich, Westerners] exhibit a far greater "neurological and psychological" set of capacities for:

trust, fairness, honesty, and cooperation with anonymous others

patience and self control

time drift and hard work

reduced in-group nepotism

free will and the capacity to make its own decisions

analytical over holistic thinking

impartial principles and objectivity

original and nonconformist thinking?

[Snip...]

Here is the gist of his thesis: the uniqueness of the West, its attachment to the rule of law, its representative institutions, its scientific predilection for drawing distinct categories and assigning objects with properties to account for their behavior, its intense attachment to the rights of individuals, are products of the unique ways in which the brains of whites came to be wired in the High Middle Ages. It was not that whites were accultured to think in a WEIRD way after they created modern liberal institutions; it was, rather, that they first began to think weirdly when the Catholic Church destroyed their kin-based organizations, their extended families, clans and lineages, and prohibited cousin marriages and polygynous marriages, in favor of nuclear monogamous families. [Cont...]

This explains why multiculturalism is such a threat; it destroys the high trust societies that Europeans have formed that benefit their particular way of thinking and operating, while simultaneously opening them to abuse by low trust, clannish, and nepotistic groups. Ironically the immigrants become a protected class; my own country now has entire government agencies that cater exclusively to third world immigrants at the expense of the original inhabitants.

The government, of necessity must become more authoritarian and little we start to resemble the third world.

The comments section in below the original article is also worth reading.

Jacinda · 2021-01-27T15:09:22+00:00

Which culture offers its citizens a better quality of life— Brazil or Scandanavia?

Different ethnic admixtures mean that certain cultural patterns predominate. If you like living in an egalitarian high trust society then it's advantageous to have a relatively homogeneous European (or East Asian) country.

In the absence of any cultural commonalities the only way to get a group of disparate people to cooperate is by force. Diversity by definition leads to authoritarianism; we are seeing the beginning of this with the loss of free speech rights, and weapons confistication.

Also diversity means that because citizens no longer feel they have nothing in common there is a reluctance to spend money on social programs — it is difficult to maintain high levels of social welfare and high levels of immigration.

Lastly you may not feel particularly ethnocentric but as history shows the immigrants themselves may have different views especially if they are hostile (or indifferent) to Western values.

Here's a comment which sums up the problems inherent in multiculturalism.

The Occidental Observer:

Brazilianization (= Lost Angelization) means:

A racially extremely diverse population;

A high level of ambient racial tension;

Extreme economic stratification, with a small, wealthy elite, a large underclass, and essentially zero middle class;

Concentration of wealth in the hands of certain ethnic groups;

Extremely high levels of street crime, including violent crime;

A police force that is both brutal and impotent in dealing with crime;

A weak public sector, with all amenities functioning inefficiently if at all (packed buses, filthy streets, etc.);

Chronic, severe corruption at all levels of government, to the point of dysfunction;

A pervasive mistrust of the government, indeed, all activities in the public sphere;

…and…

No reason to think that any of the above can be changed by any available political means.

All of this will of course be accompanied by a lot of left-wing treacle about democracy, equality, progress, etc.

I hate to say it, but I think Brazilianization will be our future.

Nombre27 · 2021-01-27T18:11:06+00:00

To put my thoughts in economic terms, creating a society where you are actively increasing the differences amongst the population will inevitably lead to more division and thus more conflicts as different people will want that societies resources directed to different things. More conflicts among a population in a civilized society results in more third party (government) intervention, e.g. special programs in schools, ESL programs for immigrants that somehow were allowed entry but can't communicate, government-sponsored (blank) for (insert minority group), etc. This raises the cost of living in that society as these disputes inevitably use up resources without any productive gain. As per Bastiat's "seen and unseen", with more resources directed to settling these conflicts or directed to special interest projects, you end up with less of the public treasury going to the common good (things that are good for all). So you end up with a lower standard of living, higher cost of living, more conflict, more infighting, etc. that

I've written this in economic terms because it's easier to understand. The same could be said about the overall well-being of people, as that is often strongly influenced by (is downstream of) society's overall economic policy.

	Yes	No
	%	%
Should we sell them food supplies?	74	27
Should we sell airplanes and other war materials to England and France?	58	42
Should we send our Army and Navy abroad to fight against Germany?	16	84
GALLUP, SEPT. 1-6, 1939

debatealtright

Got user flair? ⇧ ⇧ ⇧

MODERATORS