Cultural Marxism: Multiculturalism: Political Correctness: Media Lies: Activist Agendas: Social Mores and Norms.
When Multiculturalism is not OK!
by R.P. BenDedek
Preface:
This article is an unabridged compilation of a series of social commentary articles published at Magic City Morning star news during September/ October 2009.
The focus of the article is the utter hypocrisy of Activist Group Political Agendas, passed off as 'just causes' but in reality nothing more than means to an end: to destroy Western Culture, tradition and societies.
Over the last few years I have been compiling records of news reports related to female violence. I originally began doing this because of the number of search engine hits on an article on my website entitled: 2006 No. 1 - Mother's Who Kill Their Own Children.
That article was meant only as a catchy title to an article about the violence in Palestine, but noting how often people were searching for articles about Mothers killing their own children, I decided that perhaps it was worthy of research.
So began a yearly compilation of news reports (mostly local) of violence perpetrated by women. During this time I have come across some interesting articles about female violence, one of which was published under the title: Mother love is not universal
Today, I merely want to draw your attention to a news report in the Couriermail Online Edition from Queensland Australia, written by Margaret Wenham, and entitled: Girl violence on the rise. Here are just a few direct and paraphrased lines from that article.
Shocking new research has found female delinquency is skyrocketing, including spiraling rates of young girls before the courts for violent offences.
Prof Carrington – who will deliver her findings at a public lecture at Old Government House tomorrow evening – said her global research encompassed a range of international and Australian studies and data, notably the collection of 47 years of youth delinquency statistics from NSW.
Over that 47 years, a trebling of the rates of female delinquency
Female violent crime had also trebled between 1989 and 2007
Asked how nasty girls were becoming, she said .. I think the answer is, basically, just as violent as boys can be.
Over the last few years I have not only been providing links to instances of female violence (to combat the feminist myth of the loving nurturing mother vs. the testosterone filled violent husband and father), but I have written extensively about the social engineering of society by activist agendas.
I constantly rail against all those wonderful apparently 'human loving' individuals who in their 'alleged' love for humanity would not hesitate to commit murder at the drop of a hat because they are just so damn sure of the righteousness of their cause and their actions.
I try never to miss an opportunity to spread my own 'anti-activist' message; and so in the comments section to the article listed above, I penned the following:
Why does it always take lots of money and professional research to tell us what we know to be a fact on the ground? Why is it that we prefer 'socially engineered' political agendas to the truth.
That women are as violent as men is obvious to all.
That the violence perpetrated by women has been on the increase since feminism stoked the Marxist fires of social dissent is obvious to all.
That violence in schools has increased during this same period of social experimentation is obvious.
Western society is crashing down around our heads because the Cultural Marxists set out to destroy traditional values (starting first with religion), and left a vacuum in their place. Society is going to hell in a basket not because 'men' are to blame for the evils of society, but because we allowed our values and traditions to be destroyed via a long carefully crafted campaign.
China today has a far safer and harmonious society than Australia but such would never have occurred if first, traditional chinese society had not been turned upside down and everyone brought under the one control.
That is Australia's future. Get used to it or fight against it!
The Western world is in a battle for it's cultural survival and very few people are prepared for it, but they will be the ones who will one day be found screaming 'How did this all happen?'
If you look at the history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, you will see that the first step in the long march to success, is to rip apart the traditional fabric of society.
Eventually when the time is right, one must assume the political power of the country, and then, contrary to all the wonderful rhetoric that previously spewed forth from the caring collective leadership heart, the leadership must make sure that no one dares to even think any thought of which they do not approve, let alone actually do or say something to oppose them.
It is incumbent upon all of us to take note of all those budding little Hitlers and Stalins whose hearts bleed for the common man, but who have no compunction in 'getting rid' of anyone who speaks against them.
We live in a very false period of history. It used to be that corrupt people were visibly corrupt and untouchable. It used to be that evil people were obviously evil. Today however, the evil ones, like angels of light, pass themselves off as the good guys while reassuring us in dulcet tones that it is only 'right and just' to do and take all manner of action against those who oppose our 'righteous ideology'.
From that perspective then one can say if you are looking for a reason why females are now more violent, it is because they have been taught that violence is ok for women. It is a righteous cause in the battle against the beastly male of the species. Those pushing this type of agenda are they who pass themselves off as the kind hearted. But they are not!
Today in the West there are two extremely dangerous 'activist agendas' in operation, and they are winning the battle for the control of the hearts and minds of the general populace. The first activist agenda is that of 'Politically Correct (thought and) Speech' and the other is 'Multiculturalism'.
Both causes on the surface seem good, but it is what is under the surface of which we need be aware. Political Correctness is about controlling the way society thinks and speaks. Politically Active Multiculturalism is about destroying traditional societies.
Activists for both agendas (who may in fact have the same identity), pretend to care for society, but in fact their agenda is to destroy traditional society.
These people are deceivers folks! Those are tricksters! They are the silver tongues whose every word is just dripping with honey and righteousness, but who spend their time pointing their fingers at the 'evil people' who will not think and do as they 'ought'.
They are liars and hypocrites! And they want to rule the world!
Hypocrisy rules! Don't forget it!
As this topic continues, we will look at examples of how hypocritical some of the activist agendas are, particularly that of 'Multiculturalism'
I have written many articles in the last few years on Political Correctness and multiculturalism, and I frequently point out that those who crow the loudest about the 'rights' of ethnic minorities are also the ones who decide what is permissible and what is not.
Why is that in Australia, a Chaplain cannot 'pray' with the person he visits, or use the name of Jesus and yet Muslims receive all sorts of accommodation for their faith?
Why is it that if a non Muslim objects to seeing Muslim women in traditional dress, that they are howled down for being racist, any yet many Muslim customs, such as that men can have four wives, are simply 'not allowed' by law in our society? And what of the practice of female circumcision found in many Islamic countries in the World? Why can they not practice that procedure in our country?
..A REPORT which advocated "cultural sensitivity" when dealing with refugees who subject their daughters to genital mutilation has drawn angry criticism.
UniSA child protection expert Professor Freda Briggs has criticised the views of departmental officials in the report, saying the practice is illegal torture and the perpetrators should be charged immediately by police, without any sensitivity.
The explanation for why 'we' are called racist when we do not like something about a foreign culture, while at the same time that culture is not permitted to fully flourish on our soil, is that those in charge of making sure that we are all equal and receive 'fair' treatment, and that we should embrace each other's cultures, are also the arbiters of what 'cultural practices' the ethnic minorities can and cannot bring into our country.
The bottom line is therefore, that the thought police who demand that we 'believe as they believe' are hypocrites.
As demonstration of a how 'non accepting' society is of 'ethnic culture', I bring to your attention a recent article which will disturb many people I am sure, but if you can take your focus off the actual 'fact of the matter', and look at the principle of the matter, which is to say of 'multiculturalism, racism and political correctness', you must at the very least, recognise that so much of the spiel about 'racism and multiculturalism' is hypocritical.
A 14-year-old girl who gave birth to a baby boy after sleeping with her traditional husband was "deprived of a childhood", a Northern Territory judge has said.
The background to this story is that the Aboriginal girl was 12 and the Aboriginal boy was 16 in June of 2006 when they met. They became boyfriend and girlfriend. Finally they lived together at a remote outstation, (which is to say in a place where 'traditional aboriginals' can be found) and were supported by their extended families. She gave birth to a child last year when she was 14 years old. The boy has received a suspended jail sentence.
I imagine that many people will forgo their previous views on racism and multiculturalism to insist that the boy is a criminal and that this relationship was disgusting and tantamount to child abuse. However, the fact remains, that this story is not about western thinking, white people's culture, or religious morality. It is a story about the 'culture' of an ethnic group; a minority cultural group.
Aboriginal culture contains a lot of things which Whites don't understand. For instance, you should not look full blood Aboriginals in the eye. This is a sign of anger in Aboriginal culture.
Another cultural point to be found within Aboriginal culture, is that if a man commits murder, there is a 'blood' payment to be made that may result in the offender's death.
I remember one time when I was living in Alice Springs in the middle of Australia, that a prisoner had arrived from down south. He had served his time for murder, but before he could be taken back to his own people, he had to face this 'blood feud' trial.
He was to be taken to 5 different communities where he would be 'speared', as 'cultural' payment for his crime. The police had to be with him to ensure that he went through with these tribal customs, and to provide him with medical treatment when he was speared.
You might say that this was barbaric, but in fact it was not. You see, if the police did not take him to these spearing events, which he would survive, then he would have been murdered by relatives of the deceased.
This my friends is what it means to accept 'multicultural practices'.
This is true multiculturalism.
People who genuinely push 'multiculturalism', are only insisting on societal tolerance for all cultures. Those however who are not genuine, are those who seek to punish 'us' for not accepting the 'foreign' in our midst. But as the two stories here about Aboriginal culture indicate, there are always things about a foreign culture that we are not going to be comfortable with.
This does not mean that we do away with multiculturalism, but it does suggest that we should do away with those who would punish us for not accepting 'all foreign culture', for the fact is, that those who would punish us for not accepting 'foreign culture', are the very ones who first determine what of that 'foreign culture' is acceptable. And that my friends is hypocritical, for it demonstrates that the politically correct who want to control our thoughts and actions, have already made sure that their own 'personal' objections to minority culture have already been excised.
Who the hell are they then to tell us
that we must follow them as though they were gods?
I have already provided two examples of how Aboriginal Ethnic Culture conflicts with Western culture, and how it disturbs our sensibilities. In doing so, I made the following statements:
Those in charge of making sure that we are all equal and receive 'fair' treatment, are also the arbiters of what 'cultural practices' the ethnic minorities can and cannot bring into our country. The bottom line is therefore, that the thought police who demand that we 'believe as they believe' are hypocrites.
Those who would punish us for not accepting 'foreign culture', are the very ones who first determine what of that 'foreign culture' is acceptable. And that my friends is hypocritical, for it demonstrates that the politically correct who want to control our thoughts and actions, have already made sure that their own 'personal' objections to minority culture have been excised.
Now I want to bring you another example of unacceptable foreign culture:
An Italian man arrested in Brazil on suspicion of pedophilia for kissing his 8-year-old daughter in public has been admitted to hospital suffering symptoms of stress.
An elderly Brazilian couple saw him kiss his daughter while they were both in a hotel pool.
The couple thought the kiss, on the girl's mouth, and other signs of affection were "inappropriate" and alerted police, according to reports on the news websites G1, O Globo and Zero Hora.
Two reportedly said that they, too, felt uncomfortable with the way the man was interacting with his daughter. One witness reportedly said the kiss was suspiciously lingering.
His Brazilian wife said she was near the pool at the time and insists the kiss was innocent.
Paedophilia is a reality. It is also a scare tactic used by feminazis to turn society against men. (Refer to links at the bottom of this article).
The people in this news report who reported this little girl's father, undoubtedly did so out of concern, but let me ask you, "Who determines how a child and her parents can interact with each other?'
In a culture where physical affection is never publicly displayed, are we to assume that there is no real love between members of a family? And where physical affection is openly demonstrated, who are we to assume that there is something sinister in it?
Years ago, my cousin and I took my two boys to the cinema in town. Walking back to the train station after the show, my sixteen year old and I were walking ahead of my 14 year old and my cousin. As we approached a corner, two young men passed in front of us and continued down the street behind us. A moment later, my cousin burst out laughing. When I asked what was so funny, he said: 'Did you see the look on those guys faces? They thought you two were a sugar daddy and his boy toy!'
You see, my son and I were walking with our arms around each other. Nothing more and nothing less, but to quote the converse of what I heard a preacher once say: 'to those whose minds are impure, everything is impure'. Western society is dirty minded, and it is any wonder given what we are daily exposed to in the various media, and what we are exposed to as competing activist agendas compete for power.
While for some reason it is claimed that children who are exposed to 'smoking' on TV will be encouraged to smoke, when you try to reason that sex and violence on TV will do the same, you get the tired argument that we can't deprive the adult population of it's entertainment and that the adults should be monitoring or controlling what children see. Smoking is bad' sex and violence are OK.
While we have gay rights activists pushing their agenda - and who would gainsay it for fear of the thought police, for some reason we baulk at 'gay marriage' and paedophilia. The image that that word paedophilia creates is of a 'dirty' - 'old' - 'homosexual'. But in fact the profile of a paedophile is something quite different. So on the one hand we have a push for acceptance of homosexuality, while at the same time, scaring the public into fearing men, and no group does that better than the feminazis whose purpose is to put women on par with the divine.
The bottom line for all activist agendas is the same: 'To bring down our traditional culture'. In order to gain legitimate acceptance, each group must do it's best to destroy those elements of traditional society that stand in their way. (EG: Men, heterosexuality, religion, morality and history.)
We live in a world full of activist agendas designed to bring down our historical culture. These people may be called 'Cultural Marxists'
The cultural marxist wants to destroy western society as it is and replace it with it's own (and around the world many times over proved inferior) vision of society.
The Cultural Marxist agenda is basically to undermine all traditional values so that the void can be filled with their own philosophies enforced by their own accrued power.
One group of activists who will do anything to devalue 'men' (fathers, and grandfathers), are the feminazis, and although many do not realise it, activism itself has a hierarchy of power, with the feminists at the top. No where was this better demonstrated in Australia than in relation to some comments made about women by a Muslim Sheik. In that instance, we saw the power of feminism trump political correctness and multiculturalism.
As one Sheik Hilaly discovered, the protections offered him under the symbiotic blanket of Political Correctness & Multiculturalism, don't protect him from activist agendas. His fatal mistake was touching a sacred cow - the principles of Feminism. Sheik Hilaly, Political Correctness, and Activism's Sacred Cows
The Politically motivated (by Cultural Marxists) Multiculturalism agenda, will always be trumped by other activist agendas. In the example from the news of the Italian father kissing his daughter, and in the example of the young pregnant Aboriginal girl, the western 'alleged' abhorrence of paedophilia, trumped multiculturalism.
In effect, it means that we don't give damn about your culture if it offends our 'sense of outrage' in relation to one of our sacred cows.
When one lives, as do I, in a foreign culture, one encounters many things that at first make you feel a little uneasy. In fact as early as 2005 I wrote a two part article entitled: Western Socialisation Versus Life in China which dealt with the issue of mixing different cultures. (In the next section we will look at a little of what was contained in those articles.)
That there will be differences and difficulties when two different cultures mix is a given, and it behooves us all to be aware of it and sensitive to it; and we do well to act like civil human beings irrespective of what we may think about any particular person, race or culture.
What is unacceptable however, is the hypocrisy of those who demand - on pain of some punishment or other - that we repress our thoughts, insecurities and feelings in order to give a 'fake' impression that we are something other than who we are. And what is worse, as has already been stated, is that those who would force us to act this way, have already 'imposed' their own sanctions on imported cultures.
(Quotation from a newspaper) "Australia, like many nations, was coming to terms with the integration of different nationalities"
It is in that line that the incongruence of accusations of 'white' racism can be found, and I would like to suggest to you, that the activists who have been pulling your heart strings for years now, trying to make you feel guilty and 'racist', have in fact been conning you, as surely as a conman trying to sell a packet of 'dehydrated water' to a country bumpkin.
Apart from the Political Activists, those who seem to make a living from being constant victims of racism, are those who do not come from countries in which different races / ethnicities are integrated. Put simply, back home is not a multi-racial country.
The reason there is no apparent racism in many countries, is that there is no mix of races to start with. There is only the one ethnicity. And worthy of note is the fact that in countries like the former Yugoslavia, where races, religions and ethnicities were forced to mix, there was simmering resentment that eventually boiled over into warfare.
Wherever there is a dramatic difference between the major culture and a minority culture, there is always going to be some tension. This my friends is something that 'evolutionists' will have observed in their studies of the universe, as 'naturally occurring'.
Xenophobia, ethnocentricity and racism are only ever manifest in countries that welcome everyone, and in which everyone is considered equal. They are never visible in countries that do not welcome foreigners as citizens.
How can any westerner feel sorry for the people of China because they live under bondage to the mentality of their communist masters, when they themselves (the westerners) constantly live in fear of 'Political Correctness', the 21st Century Western equivalent of the Chinese 'Cultural Revolution': 'If you are not one of us then you are a counter-revolutionary, an enemy of the people!' What do you think 'Hate Speech Laws' are all about?
For all that the activists proclaim the righteousness of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism, the examples provided in this article demonstrate clearly that at the end of the day, only that which is 'expedient' to the will of the 'would be masters of society', is important, and when it comes to hierarchical importance, true multiculturalism has to hop into the back seat when it conflicts with the 'personal agendas' of the elitists.
While nothing in this article is designed to give the impression that there is something intrinsically wrong with having or living in a multicultural society, what this article stridently wishes to point out is, that when a population is denied the democratic right to free speech and dissent; when a society is denied the right to have and to hold thoughts and opinions that are not officially sanctioned; when a society is forbidden to express their fears and concerns about another culture, then that society is not only no longer a 'free and democratic' society, but is in fact living within a totalitarian state.
We do have the right to our personal preferences and opinions, and to verbalise them. We do not of course have the right to translate negative (or positive for that matter) feelings, into verbal or physical violence or other less obvious forms of nasty aggression.
You can personally disagree with another person's beliefs and practices, without being enemies unless you happen to be an activist!
Part 4
Facing Reality in Multiculturalism.
(Published at Magic City under the Title:
Multiculturalism: The Loss of Culture)
At the end of the previous section of this four part series on Multiculturalism, I made the following statement:
While nothing in this article is designed to give the impression that there is something intrinsically wrong with having or living in a multicultural society, what this article stridently wishes to point out is, that when a population is denied the democratic right to free speech and dissent; when a society is denied the right to have and to hold thoughts and opinions that are not officially sanctioned; when a society is forbidden to express their fears and concerns about another culture, then that society is not only no longer a 'free and democratic' society, but is in fact living within a totalitarian state.
We in our western democracies share an abhorrence for communism and other totalitarian regimes, but it seems that as long as we sugar coat our 'loss of freedoms', we really don't mind living in totalitarian societies. We like to believe that we are a free and democratic society that is very egalitarian and accepting of others, but it is my belief that Our thinking and many of our cultural beliefs are no less a result of 'political and media propaganda', than are those of people raised in totalitarian states. (Western Socialisation Versus Life in China Part.1)
When it comes to the issue of culture and multiculture, we like to believe that we are in fact accepting of the 'other'. But as has been pointed out in this series, the elites and the powers that be, have often already taken the surgeon's knife to those foreign cultures even before their carriers arrive.
The fiction that is then created and circulated throughout the various media for our general consumption, is that these foreign cultures 'add' to the composite whole of society and that we should partake of them with gusto. But I believe, and am on record as having said, that The 'political' entity called multiculturalism, is something that tries to raise 'foreign cultures' to some imaginary 'aspirational height' whose value exceeds and therefore should replace our own homespun generic varieties. ( Western Socialisation Versus Life in China Part.2)
I stated in the article quoted above that there are ways of thinking, acting and living in some foreign cultures that you as an individual might not find appropriate. In this I was not talking about things like circumcision or having 4 wives, but quite ordinary things which are unacceptable in our own societies.
In China it is a common sight to see men urinating on the street. Would you want that in your country? No? Why not? It is the most basic of human necessities, and the only reason that you would find it objectionable is that you have been brought up to find it disgusting. In China however, the foreigner soon gets used to this circumstance, and it is not long before he finds himself acting in the same cultural mode as every Chinese, which is to say, that he simply does not look; is not offended; and does not care about it.
When I lived in Suzhou, it was a common sight in Summer to see fathers in their underwear washing their naked kids on the footpath in the evenings. This at first is quite a shock but before long you find yourself doing what everyone else does; you simply don't look.
Why in the minds of Chinese people is such behaviour not shocking, disgusting or deserving of police action? Answer: Because it is normal!
In my article Western Socialisation Versus Life in China Part.2 written many years ago now, I provided some information relating to an article entitled: Cultural Adjustment Part II and the Downfall of American Socialization : 2003-11-25 Xu Jia Hui, Shanghai, China. That article describes the authors growing awareness of how media plays a significant role in forming our worldviews. I quote:
He commences his story by relating his shock when he left Hawaii to live in San Francisco, and for the first time observed openly homosexual behaviour; something which he would not find shocking now. He then continues on to general shocks that one encounters in China, such as 'crippled and deformed individuals begging on the streets, 'one nostril' nose-blowers, pajama wearers in the ritzy department stores ...'
From these observations he moves on to recount an event which saw himself, a black african man, and a 14 year old girl all together in an apartment watching an NBA video. I quote here in parts: 'during our discussions, me, a fourteen year old girl and the West African guy found that we all shared an interest in American NBA basketball ... we decided to get together to watch the yet unseen DVD ... Think about the situation for a moment. Would this arrangement pass muster in the USA? A fourteen year old girl and two men; one of them being a black. Certainly none of us see nothing wrong with arrangement and it appears innocent enough..... It then occurred to me how the American Media has shaped my way of thinking and the brainwashing effect which is finally wearing off.'
Media plays an important role in promoting all sorts of agendas, not the least of which are the activist agendas.
In Part.1 of that article on Western Socialisation, I provided an excerpt from an article that challenges the concepts of American multiculturalists, adhering to a philosophical and pedagogical belief in the relative value and equality of all cultures.
But the dilemma for American teachers is compounded by the fact that while they may have never thought of themselves as particularly American before teaching in China, they would have defined themselves, more or less, as multiculturalists, adhering to a philosophical and pedagogical belief in the relative value and equality of all cultures.
What happens to one's multicultural beliefs when one comes into contact with aspects of another culture that one does not like? How does one adjust the image of oneself as a person who celebrates cultural difference when one finds one's reactions increasingly ethnocentric?
While all Americans in China are bound to feel an element of culture shock, the culture shock is greater, I think, for American teachers because these questions are bound to apply to teachers in China more than, say, to business people.
American business people go to China armed with the inherent belief in the superiority of American capitalism and find in China a reconfirmation of that belief. But American teachers go to China armed with the inherent belief in the equality of all cultures and find their commitment to this principle challenged daily.
Ironically, the Americans least challenged by China are right-wing Republicans; the Communist campaign against bourgeois liberalism is not that different from the American right-wing campaign against secular humanism.
American liberals - and how many English teachers do you know who don't consider themselves on the liberal half of the political divide? - find that the things that the Chinese most embrace about America (unbridled laissez-faire economics, unchecked technological growth) are the very things that most American teachers dislike about America.
Notice that last paragraph: The things which American liberals dislike about America are the very things which the Chinese do like about America. And the converse is also true. So many American Liberal causes and beliefs, are not culturally acceptable to the Chinese, and dare I say it, to Muslims and other Religious persons. Liberal and multicultural activists and ideologues should bear in mind that many of the beneficiaries of their ideology which demands acceptance of foreign culture, actually strongly oppose many of those ideologies, including homosexuality.
In China, one begins to wonder if it is something genetic, or possibly relating to strict Government control over what can be seen on television, that leaves Chinese people free to live their lives unfettered by 'dark fears' of 'men' and 'dirty old men'. Furthermore, you begin to wonder why it is that what is demonstrative of genuine love for someone of the same gender in China, is both 'dirty' and a sure sign that someone is 'gay' in the west.
We have to realise that our western perceptions of right and wrong are not necessarily shared by people of 'other' cultures. Furthermore, many of our perceptions may not at all have anything to do with morality or righteousness 'per se', but rather, may be the result of ideological propaganda engineered by 'vested interests'.
If multiculturalism activists demand that we 'accept' other cultures, then they are going to have to accept that many of those cultures will have values that clash with our own, and that if we are truly 'multicultural' and truly 'anti-discriminatory', then we really do not have a right (politically correctly speaking) to stigmatise 'ethnic' values, just because they do clash with our own.
Let's just picture it for a moment. Let's imagine that you see some Chinese or Muslim person, (and you dislike both), and some 'S.S. type thought policeman' overhears you say something derogatory about them. What will they do? Well of course they will tell you off if you are lucky; abuse hell out of you if you are not; and beat the living daylights out of you if it is really not your day.
But let's now imagine that the Storm Trooper, having defended the 'oppressed minority', stands up and says: 'Hey Mr. Chinese man / Muslim man, welcome to our country!' - and as thanks for his actions and welcome, gets called a #$%^ homosexual! (Cause maybe he is!)
What happens to multiculturalism then? My bet is that 'minority group' person is going to get as good as you got just moments before. Why? Because there is a hierarchical power order in activist agendas. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems.
If we are going to accept 'other cultures' then we have to do it honestly! But the reality is that some foreign culture is just not acceptable to us, not because it is necessarily bad, (for example: urinating in the street), but because we have been brought up differently.
A true multiculturalist is one who accepts that he is not always going to approve of a different culture, but is prepared to allow the 'other' the right to their own culture. Circumcision (male and female), tattoo's, alcohol, smoking, modesty or lack thereof, women's rights, gay rights, general manners and courtesy, religion or lack thereof are just some examples of things in other cultures that we might find offensive, and of course, which they might find offensive in us.
If there is some element of another culture that we find offensive, why is it that we are called racist for saying so? After all, it is one thing to talk about multiculturalism and how we should 'respect' everyone's culture, and quite another to expose aspects of those cultures to our children whom we have raised to hold contrary values and customs.
We have a right to our beliefs, opinions and most of all, our own customs. To wish to maintain your own culture is certainly not racist, for if it were, the Chinese and the Muslims would certainly qualify as certified racists. The Chinese do not, as far as I have observed, hate people based on race. They do not look down on people because of the colour of their skin, or their religion. They do however insist that their Chinese culture is superior to foreign cultures; that Chinese Culture ought to be maintained at all costs, and that foreigners should not force their foreign ways on the Chinese.
If it could be said that 'Racism denies people the right to have and maintain their own culture, language and religion' then it could be said that activists who persecute those of us who value our personal culture over those of the 'foreigners', are racists, because they would deny us basic rights.
Cultural Marxists have been experimenting with Western Society for too long. They have gone to great lengths to see traditional Judeo-Christian culture destroyed. They long for the day when all the cultural prohibitions which have held them down and relegated them to the fringes of society, will be destroyed. They long for the day when their own 'minority' culture will be accepted as the norm. But not content to see this occur through natural change, they 'force it on society'.
Cultural change however, can only ever be successful when societal culture changes from within by the will or aquiesence of the people. Legislation and totalitarianism cannot for long force countries to change their social culture. Genuine culture merely goes into hiding, to await a day of liberty.
Moreover, just because 'we' undervalue our own national culture (and there are many Australians like that), does not give us the right to force 'foreign culture' on our own society.
It's a difficult kettle of fish to cook, but we cannot claim to be non discriminatory, when we discriminate against our own people, and nor can we say that we embrace other cultures, when we institute legislation to outlaw certain social 'norms' of immigrants entering our country.
When we surrender our minds and emotions to the whims of militant political minorities, we are in danger of complying with all sorts of 'political depravity'. Nazism was not a 'movement', it was the result of a failure to discriminately 'move' for truth, decency, and honesty, and a failure to 'move' against tyranny, threats, and terrorism. (Racism, Intolerance and Discrimination)
When elites start thinking of us as being like rats or children to be prodded toward this social goal or that, it's the beginning of the end of our Republic. (Max Borders: TCS Daily)
Freedom requires vigilence and determination. Activist agendas only require silent passive assent. Let us keep our multicultural societies free and democratic. If that is not possible, then we must give up something that we cherish and believe to be our right to have and to hold.
Democracy or Totalitarianism - Which will you choose?
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
