The continued dominance of the doctrines of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism depends on a set of unexamined premises. If the axioms underlying PC/MC were ever carefully examined by a large proportion of the populace, the entire political superstructure of the West would collapse.
The practitioners of the Multicultural Arts are at least subliminally aware that the basic assumptions of their dogma cannot stand up to close scrutiny. This is why the proponents of PC/MC tend to respond to reasonable criticism with accusations of “racism”, vicious ad-hominem attacks, and physical violence. They fear that the edifice in which they have invested so much emotional and physical energy may in fact be spun from pure gossamer. Fear generates anger, and their fury demands the destruction of those who would expose their delusions.
The other day former British prime minister Tony Blair invoked one of the major unexamined premises of Multiculturalism while defending his party’s immigration policy during his time in office: “Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.”
Where is the evidence for this assertion?
How has it been tested?
In what ways was Britain unsuccessful while it was still, well, British? In what ways is it more successful now?
None of these questions is asked by any significant public figure, because the axioms of Multiculturalism must not be questioned. They wouldn’t axioms if they were open to debate. Immigration is good for the country, and that’s that. It’s true because Tony Blairs says so.
Here’s the story from The Daily Mail:
Blair Defends Opening the Door to Mass Migration and Says it Had a Very Positive Impact on Britain
Former PM said it was ‘right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together
Tony Blair has defended Labour’s controversial mass immigration policy by claiming that Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.
The former prime minister said it was ‘right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together.
Let’s continue our questioning of these unexamined premises. In what sense is it “right” to mix cultures? By whose standards?
Mr Blair added that migrants had made Britain ‘stronger’ and said those calling for greater curbs on foreigners entering the country were wrong.
Really? In what way is Britain stronger now than it was before it admitted all those immigrants?
From an outsider’s viewpoint it looks much weaker and more fragmented than it ever has before.
His comments come just days after official figures revealed that the population is expected to soar by the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds every year for the next decade.
A defiant Mr Blair insisted his party’s policy on immigration was the right one. He said: ‘It’s been a very positive thing and there is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.’
Once again, what evidence is there that mass immigration is a “positive thing”? What studies can you cite? Where are the statistics? Do unbiased surveys of public opinion agree with you?
Under Labour, up to 5.5million people born outside the UK arrived as long-term migrants.
Between 1997 and 2010, around 2.3million left the country, meaning the UK population increased by around 3.2million as a direct result of foreign migrants.
In an interview with Eastern Eye newspaper, Mr Blair said: ‘The vision of a country of different cultures and different faiths mixing together is the right one.
‘That is not to say you don’t have problems at certain points, but those problems are to be overcome without losing the essence of what has actually allowed this country’s people to get on and do well.’
The people who “do well” under recent British immigration policies are those foreigners who live lavishly on social benefits, along with their multiple wives and numerous children.
But what about the average hard-working British taxpayer? How well is he doing?
Next comes one of the most frequently employed tactics of a Socialist who is being criticized: his critics’ complaints are stale. They’re old hat. Been there, done that. Yesterday’s news:
Mr Blair added that the anti-immigration debate was one of the ‘past’. ‘I think the majority of people in Britain today are not prejudiced and can understand the benefits of migration.
In other words: if your criticism has been leveled by somebody else in the past, it has no validity.
Why is that? Why does an argument become invalid simply because it has been made more than once?
Here are the responses of two of Mr. Blair’s out-of-fashion critics:
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: ‘This is completely shameless from the Prime Minister who brought more than three million immigrants into Britain in the teeth of public opposition.’
Fellow Tory MP Dominic Raab added: ‘These comments are naïve if not reckless. Tony Blair has left Britain with a legacy of uncontrolled immigration that has put huge pressure on public services and undermined community cohesion’.
Ah, but Multiculturalism guarantees that there will never be any “community cohesion”. The phrase is a euphemism for “a lack of interracial and intercommunal violence”.
“Community cohesion” means no honor killings, no grooming and pimping, no ethnic gangs, no citizens getting beat up for being white or Christian. Britain will not attain that exalted state again for the foreseeable future.
From Multiculturalism’s point of view, an absence of “community cohesion” is not a bug — it’s a feature.
It’s a good idea to subject the premises of PC/MC to close scrutiny. None of them can stand up to a real forensic examination.
Let’s keep doing it. Fear and the herd mentality are the only things that hold this Palace of Folly together.
Hat tip: Fjordman.