As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.
If Orwell were alive today, I’m guessing by this full essay that he’d be likening the threat of Islamic terrorism, and specifically groups like ISIS, to German Fascism.
And in doing so he’d be saying that people who are denying we have a problem, or even accepting the push into our physical and ideological territory, are causing great harm.
The problem, however, is defining the boundary between actual infestation and diversity. Diversity is good. Variation is good. Immigration. All of it.
But only when we’re taking in new types of people who also agree with our values.
This is the primary mistake being made with multiculturalism today—and perhaps for much of its history: When you have a country like the United States, or Britain, that decides to let people into its borders in search of a better life, there should be a very specific boundary that cannot be crossed.
But nobody has set that boundary because nobody has even dared to describe it. Here was my attempt: [ Measuring the Quality of a Culture ].
Here’s a snippet:
- Respect for everyone on earth, meaning all races, all genders, all nationalities, and all sexual orientations
- A desire to help everyone on earth thrive and succeed and be happy
- Group and shared investment in the infrastructure required to enable this outcome
- A quality education for everyone on the planet
- Promotion of creativity as a prime attribute
- Promotion of kindness and courtesy as prime attributes
- The careful consideration of the state of the community, state, nation, and planet prior to bringing more human life into the world
- A powerful individual desire to contribute and participate in the running of the world
Those are obviously not perfect, and could be improved by a group of students in any good PoliSci class in an hour, but the point is that we cannot filter based on a standard that we don’t have.
Our problem with immigration and multiculturalism in the west is that we’re not just bringing in people who share our values from other places. We’re also bringing in people who despise our values, and who are either hoping to see the system fail or are working to bring it about.
That’s no way to run an immigration program. It’s supremely foolish to be so liberal as to import people who will tell you right to your face that they intend to see your civilization overturned and replaced (and who are working towards that goal).
And yet that’s exactly what we have in many places in Europe, and I imagine in the U.S. as well.
I don’t believe it’s some crisis right now, where we need to go full-Trump or anything (never a good idea).
But we do need to realize that there is such a thing as being too nice and too tolerant when faced with intolerance that wishes to spread.
And that’s what Islamicism is. It’s the idea that Hardcore Islam and Sharia Law is the best way for the world to live, along with the political and other methods for expanding its reach.
So be tolerant. Be open to new people and cultures. Don’t ever stop accepting new people and new ideas. But don’t ever let that kindness blind you to those who don’t share your viewpoint.
Pacifism is a godsend for those who oppose you, as it allows an actual enemy to make progress without challenge.
Don’t let your (and our) strengths turn into their opportunities to destroy the very culture of kindness and tolerance we’re trying to protect.