The Multicultural Lie

Pages: 1 2

For Americans, this is an illuminating book in many ways.  Some of us tend to think of Canada (when we think of it at all) as a country pretty much like our own, where the only real difference is that the people pronounce “out” and “about” differently; but of course Canadians not only have their own history but also their own distinctive ways of thinking about politics, culture, and value – many of which, indeed, have taken shape in reaction to American ways of thinking.  So it was with multiculturalism, which in the beginning was viewed as an effective way of distinguishing Canada from the United States, of whose “melting pot” philosophy many bien pensant Canadians heartily disapproved.  Canada, they insisted, would not be a “melting pot” but a beautiful mosaic, a melange, a smorgasbord – yet instead of sharpening Canada’s profile vis-à-vis its neighbor to the south, the new policy, Mansur complains, only served to make a “weak national identity….even weaker.”

Still, he suggests, it was not until 9/11 that it became fully clear just how much of a threat multiculturalism poses to free societies.  For multiculturalism, he explains, turns out to be nothing less than “the slippery slope that leads to the acceptance or appeasement of the politics of jihad within a liberal democracy.”  The kind of liberty we have enjoyed in countries like the U.S. and Canada, Mansur reminds us, is a glorious exception in human history: in most times and places – and certainly in Communist and Islamic societies – the human individual has been “a cog in a machine…a means to an end as defined by the collective.  This is the politics of jihad, which has been the normal condition for humankind in history, and only for brief tantalizing moments in history has the promise of history, as what ought to be the condition for humankind, appeared on history’s stage.”

While the phenomenon of creeping jihad has quite clearly exposed the danger of multiculturalism, however, Western politicians and multiculturalist ideologues have decided perversely – “like dope addicts” – that the answer “is more multiculturalism,” including gradually giving in to demands for parallel systems of sharia law, in the absurd hope that if Islamic demands are met, “Muslims will respond by respecting European values.”  Yet as Mansur underscores, Islamists “are not ideologically motivated to seek coexistence on terms set by others; for them, coexistence means setting the terms for others on the basis of shari’ah values that are incompatible with liberal values.”  Indeed.

“The world is naturally diverse,” Mansur observes.  “But the moral strength of liberalism comes from its refusal to make a fetish of this diversity.  The liberal vision sees above and beyond diversity in respecting individual rights, and by defending liberty on the basis of securing individual rights liberalism acknowledges that the naturally given diversity finds its best unfettered expression through the lives of individuals as free agents in history.”  Delectable Lie is the testimony of a man who has seen the world from both sides – the free and the unfree – and who, after doing some very serious and responsible thinking about liberty and identity, has come to understand exactly why Western freedom and multiculturalism are mutually incompatible.  It would behoove those of us who have been fortunate enough to live our entire lives in the free West to heed his wisdom, and defend our liberties as zealously as he does in the pages of this invaluable book.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • "gunner"

    "multiculturalism" doomed the roman empire, they let the barbarians move into the empire and more followed behind until finally rome fell, and was sacked and pillaged by more barbarians. it took a few hundred years, but things and events move faster now.

  • winoceros

    I respect this man and his effort. But for the love of Pete will someone please tell me what a "secular Muslim" is?

    • StephenD

      wino, by all accounts (of other "Muslims") there is no such thing. Therefore, he is NOT a Muslim.

      • winoceros

        Thank you both…I understand what a cultural muslim is….a muslim who is completely or nearly completely nonadherant who shows up for ramadan meals with the family.

        For a woman, it's doing the above until she is married, when she then somehow must become much more devout (why is that?) or be killed out of shame.

        For a man, it's doing the above and then staying well away from the rest of the extended family before uncle Ahmed gets any idea about just how much BS he thinks Islam is anyway.

        But a secular Muslim? No such thing.

    • Steeloak

      A secular muslim is, by the tenents of the faith, an apostate. The punishment for that is death. I hope he has good security, because he is one fatwa away from being a target.

  • StephenD

    How long until we see Multiculturalism as the principle that defines our liberties? I'm recalling the Ft. Hood massacre and the response from the General who said something to the effect of "the 13 lives lost and the many wounded is tragic but even WORSE would be if our diversity was affected."

    When I heard this red flags flew in my head but what can we do about it? Has the American psyche already succumbed to the idea that the collective breakdown of our differences, under the guise of celebrating them, actually turns to remove all of them and relegate us "to the masses?"

    Who is served by such an abrupt change in the basic tenants of our Republic? Communists and Islamists; Tyrants all.

    • Steeloak

      Generals are bound and gagged by political correctness. The best ones find ways to do their job anyway, the worst ones embrace it as a career enhancing move. They are the "Perfumed Princes" that the late Col. David Hackworth often disparaged.

      • winoceros

        By the way, I want to acknowledge your low rating is brought on by daring to stand up to the Paulbots on a Paul-content post here at Frontpage.

        They would be the first to deny that Islam has any designs on the quashing of individual liberties. If we just don't "occupy" their lands, they won't hate us.

        I don't suppose it ever occurred to them why that "part of the world" is so "volatile" and has been for centuries. They lament the centuries of invasion and war in the region, and America's involvement, but never ask what caused the U.S. and others to bother to fight with the locals of that place in the first place. No recognition whatsoever of the Gates of Vienna and Martel and Sicily and Cyprus and India and Russia and China being the first victims of the jihad, long before America was born.

        Naifs.

  • Ghostwriter

    I've often seen Indians where I live,and I'm talking about the ones from India,not the Native Americans. It's ironic. This guy from India emigrated to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. I've heard of Canadians who live in America and some of them become American citizens. That's life for you.