Culture and the Perils of Ideology

A society that tries to accommodate both a culture that respects women generally and one that does so only in prescribed circumstances is not multicultural; it is fractured. It is not tolerant but rather, it is deluded.

In addition to the objects of respect that a society recognizes, culture affects the notion of responsibility in a society. Cultures that disdain the idea of human agency in favor of some notion of fate, or that minimize individual responsibility in deference to group affiliation are unlikely to harmonize with cultures that believe that individuals have responsibility for their own actions and circumstances.

The catastrophic folly of multiculturalism is the belief that cultures that arise in significantly different environments, and from significantly different histories, can exist unchanged in a new environment if afforded sufficient tolerance. In practice, a new culture introduces a new environment and the interacting cultures will change each other in unpredictable and often undesirable ways. Introducing a culture that has little respect for property, for example, will not reliably make the host culture more accommodating of pilfering, but may instead provoke more aggressiveness in defending property.

When multicultural ideologues are confronted with this natural circumstance the response is, as was seen in Britain, bafflingly unjust and tyrannical resorts to government obfuscation and use of force for refusing to indulge in an ideological fantasy. It is not possible to manage "community relations" by suppressing information regarding crimes within that community. Human nature will not yield to the desire that people will believe only what authorities want them to believe, hear what they want them to hear, or behave as though they cannot decide for themselves what is important to them.

My take on this article, as it applies to the grooming gang problem in the UK, is that the failure to address these crimes stems from a dangerous disregard of cultural and societal realities by ideologues. Specifically:

Dismissal of First Principles: The article argues that ideologues prioritized abstract ideals, like multiculturalism and "community relations," over the foundational principles that ensure societal functioning, such as justice, individual dignity, and rule of law.
Cultural Incompatibility: It highlights the inherent challenges of integrating cultures with vastly different values into a single society. When a culture that disrespects women or individual responsibility is introduced into a high-trust society with contrasting values, it leads to societal fractures and conflict.
Failure of Multiculturalism: The grooming gang scandal illustrates the "catastrophic folly" of the belief that all cultures can coexist harmoniously without changing or influencing one another. This idealistic approach led to government complicity in suppressing information and protecting criminals to uphold an ideological fantasy.
Consequences of Ideological Governance: The article emphasizes that ignoring natural consequences, such as the breakdown of trust and cohesion in a fractured society, leads to tragic outcomes. The grooming scandals are presented as a direct result of suppressing the realities of cultural conflict in favor of a delusional commitment to multiculturalism.
The Importance of Culture: The piece asserts that Western culture, with its emphasis on individual dignity, rights, and rule of law, is a legacy that must be defended. Ideological crusades that neglect this understanding jeopardize societal stability and cultural preservation.
The Danger of Ideologues: Ideologues disregard unintended consequences, assuming their ideals will work as envisioned. This blind pursuit of ideological goals, such as "unconstrained multiculturalism," leads to societal tragedies like the grooming gang crisis.

Conclusion

The grooming gang problem in the UK is used as a case study to demonstrate the dangers of ignoring cultural realities and dismissing the foundational principles that sustain functioning societies. The article argues for the need to defend and maintain cultural values that ensure trust, justice, and social cohesion, rather than sacrificing them to ideological fantasies.

What makes one culture (set of values) “better” than another?

That is determined when two cultures come in close contact (competition) with each other, as is happening with Islam and the west today.

Because of significant differences in values there is a big clash between these two cuktures.

The “better” culture will be the one that ends up dominating or vanquishing the other. Survival of the fittest.

So which one of these two cultures is going to come up in top and how will that struggle evolve. We’re in the middle of it now.

What do you think?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.