By Imnokuffar and Powys-The ethnic make-up of Britain is obviously rapidly changing due to the effect of immigration, but the arrival of millions of newcomers to our islands is driving an official policy of multiculturalism and the accompanying and covert policy of political correctness.
What is not being discussed in our media are the growing stresses building in our open society caused not by the introduction of large numbers of people of differing races and cultures, but rather by those who clearly do not accept our values and who are militant in their defence of their own traditions, religions and laws.
While there is a liberal tendency in the whole western world to make compromises and to accommodate cultural differences in viewpoint, there still remains a body of our native people who are understandably angered by what appears to be moral backsliding when dealing with groups who are arguably irrational, less developed culturally, and, who are openly hostile towards our people, our religion, our laws and our customs.
Many of us would rather not be changed at all and especially by pressure groups formed from foreign elements, who are violating the first rule of courtesy of a guest towards the host and who were admitted into our country in a process over which we had little or no input.
We must be true to ourselves and understand who we are as a people, how we define ourselves and what is useful and unique about the society that we created.
In our ancient past we were a people who used magic, superstition and the explanations of shaman to provide us with explanations; later, we looked to mainly to faith, theology and a body of classical knowledge, but, beginning in the 18th century, we changed to being a society that has increasingly looked to science and its empirically-derived knowledge base for our guiding information.
Our progress in the sciences was accompanied by our achievements in philosophy and western thought. It was our growing appreciation and knowledge of the mysteries of nature and our ability to accurately quantify information that began in fact to transform and define western society, together of course with a more open, i.e., free, self-critical, rational and universal way of viewing the world and the introduction of laws and customs which increasingly reflected the new understandings.
By the beginning of the 18th century Britain led the world in enlightened thinking and material progress, but sadly, since the middle of the 20th century we appear to have abandoned everything for which we were once admired in a vain quest for utopian values driven by the coercive power of the collective.
Even worse, we have lost our faith in ourselves as Britons to control our lives and our nation and we have subordinated ourselves to the whims of a European super state.
With the loss of sovereignty came loss of control over policies and border security and with the policy of multiculturalism came the loss of the national soul.
What immigration has done moreover has been to introduce large numbers peoples into our country who have not shared our developmental history, but who to a large extent remain locked into ways of thinking that we abandoned generations ago.
What is surprising however is that we are now faced with our political leaders trying to paper over these differences as being unimportant – even to the extent of telling us that ‘all cultures are equal; that all men are the same; and that even truth itself is just relative because there is no objective standard.’
We can see from our current events that the interaction of different peoples can be positive or negative, but, according to our ‘progressive’ political leaders, constructive interaction will depend entirely on the level of sensitivity and respect held by those interacting.
Now, we can identify two distinctly different attitudes held by the actors in these exchanges and they can be termed as follows:
1.The ethnocentric viewpoint; and, 2. The viewpoint of the cultural relativist.
Negative attitudes towards other cultures and/or ethnic groups are said to arise out of ethnocentrism, while positive attitudes are the result of a culturally relativist approach.
It follows from this that if people are going to be successful in today's multicultural, world society, they will need to develop a culturally-sensitive frame of reference and mode of operation.
This then is the argument that is used in support of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness and it is the underlying theory that drives both of these heinous policies.
So what is meant by cultural relativism?
In essence it deals with the nature and role of values and an assumption that their genesis lies within specific cultures and societies. It contains the assumption that values are simply shared ideals, which in turn give rise to beliefs and consequent norms of behaviour.
People and groups then organize their collective lives and chose their goals based on that chain of thinking. It follows from this that values are simply creations of a particular cultural ambiance and that they have no other claim on intrinsic truth, i.e., my values are every bit as good as yours because our only essential difference is our culture.
What happens though when a culture defines its values solely in terms of adherence to a religious belief system? Belief is based upon understandings that are revealed from a posited supreme being.
This means that proofs are not possible and all is based on faith. Put simply, belief is not the same thing as knowledge (which is verifiable and based upon observation and measurement through the senses), i.e., one simply believes, or one does not believe and there is no supporting evidence.
Obviously there will be occasions when ‘believers’ think differently to those with secular values and at those times there will be discord.
Perhaps it was because of those possibilities, that our elites have encouraged us to shut our mouths via political correctness?
It is natural for us to judge the behaviour of all of our citizens by comparing them to our national standards; furthermore, we tend to measure the value of actions in other cultures by our standards.
In other words what seems fair to us we assume should also seem fair to them. So, when we see an action we regard as being treacherous, we assume that they must have violated their own code.
Interestingly, a deeper understanding of their value system code sometimes reveals a surprise, in that their norms of behaviour may be so radically different to ours that no accord is possible.
It is written for example that a Muslim may tell bare-faced lies, kill people who are not Muslim -- or even other Muslims -- if they do not possess the same understanding of the Koran.
These instances are not violation of their values or norms of behaviour. They are in fact approved by the Koran, Allah and the Prophet.
So it is entirely correct for them to undertake such activities.
Here is a little story that explains Cultural Relativism in an interesting manner:Darius, a king of Ancient Persia was intrigued by the variety of cultures he encountered in his travels.
He had found, for example, that the Callatians (a tribe of Indians) customarily ate the bodies of their dead fathers.
The Greeks, of course, did not do that, in that the Greeks practiced cremation and regarded the funeral pyre as the natural and fitting way to dispose of the dead.
Darius thought that a sophisticated understanding of the world must include an appreciation of such differences between cultures. One day, to teach this lesson, he summoned some Greeks who happened to be present at his court and asked them what they would take to eat the bodies of their dead fathers.
They were shocked, as Darius knew they would be, and replied that no amount of money could persuade them to do such a thing. Then Darius called in some Callatians, and while the Greeks listened asked them what they would take to burn their dead fathers' bodies.
The Callatians were horrified and told Darius not even to mention such a dreadful thing. This story, recounted by Herodotus in his History, illustrates a recurring theme in the literature of social science: different cultures have different moral codes. What is thought right within one group may be utterly abhorrent to the members of another group, and vice-versa.
Should we eat the bodies of the dead or burn them? If you were a Greek, one answer would seem obviously correct; but if you were a Callatian, the opposite would seem equally certain.
Cultural Relativism, as it has been called, challenges our ordinary belief in the objectivity and universality of moral truth. It says in effect, that there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics; there are only the various cultural codes, and nothing more. Moreover, our own code has no special status; it is merely one among many. As we shall see, this basic idea is really a compound of several different thoughts.
It is important to separate the various elements of the theory because, on analysis, some parts of the theory can be shown as correct, whereas others seem to be in error.
As a beginning, we may distinguish the following claims, all of which have been made by cultural relativists:
1 . Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics, i.e., there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times and places. FALSE
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. TRUE or at least it is prudent to think along those lines if one travels!
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures. Although it may seem that these six propositions go naturally together, they are in fact quite independent of one another, in the sense that some of them might be true even if others are false. FALSE
In what follows, we will try to identify what is correct in Cultural Relativism, but we will also be concerned to expose its essential errors.
The Cultural Differences Argument Cultural Relativism is a theory about the nature of morality and superficially it appears to be valid.
However, like all such theories, it may be evaluated by subjecting it to rational analysis and when we do that its flaws are evident. The first thing we need to notice is that at the heart of Cultural Relativism lies a misleading form of argument.
Their strategy is to argue from facts about the differences between cultural outlooks leading to a conclusion about the status of morality.
Thus we are invited to accept the following reasoning:
(1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
(2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.
(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture.
We may call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is very persuasive. But from a logical point of view, is it a sound argument? It is not sound.
The trouble here is that the conclusion does not logically follow from its premise, i.e., even where the premise may be true, the conclusion can nevertheless be false.
The premise concerns what people actually believe: in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe differently.
The conclusion, however, concerns what really transpires. The trouble is that this sort of conclusion does not follow logically from this sort of premise.
Consider again the example of the Greeks and Callatians. The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead; the Callatians believed it was right.
Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagreed, that there is no objective truth in the matter? No, it does not follow; for it could be that the practice was objectively right (or wrong) and that one or the other of them was simply mistaken.
We in western societies believe it is wrong to eat the dead; we call it cannibalism and we find it totally abhorrent and it is in fact a criminal offence.
In other societies this is not the case, does that make it right?
Fortunately, some errors held by groups can be checked by observation and can easily be refuted.
For example consider the following examples: In some societies, people believe the earth is flat. In other societies, such as our own, people believe the earth is (roughly) spherical.
Does it follow, from the mere fact that they disagree, that there is no "objective truth" in geography? Of course not and we would never draw such a conclusion, because we realize that, in their beliefs about the world, the members of some societies might simply be wrong.
There is no reason to think that if the world is round everyone must know it. Similarly, there is no reason to think that if there is an objective truth everyone must agree.
Galileo observed that the sun rather than the earth lies at the centre of the solar system, but the Church’s traditional dogma taught otherwise in spite of the empirical evidence.
In that instance ‘truth’ eventually trumped dogma, but of course poor Galileo was forced by the Church to deny what was evident.
The fundamental fraud of Cultural Relativism is that people are led to believe that all things are ‘equal’, when in fact they are not. Some activities are so repugnant in their nature that we naturally abhor them.
Female Genital Mutilation, Child Marriage, Forced Marriage, Terrorism, Murder, anti-Semitism are abhorrent to us and to most people in all western societies, but are practiced in our lands by a culture that is alien, unforgiving and barbarous.
The essential problem in evaluating the rightness or wrongness of the above list is that they must be evaluated in different ways to the two previous physical examples.
Moral choices are best evaluated by measuring their effects on life. In other words, if an action has the effect of causing misery, shortening life or having negative effects on the continuance of the species, then in all probability one is objectively dealing with an immoral action.
In other words we can establish a universal standard by which the effect of behaviours can be measured. Such a standard does not replace the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, but compliments and supports them.
Furthermore: our Christian faith teaches that truth is not subjective (John17:17); and, There is a moral standard ........ (Revelation 20:11, 12)
It logically follows from all of these things that we are unapologetic ethnocentric barbarians, and that we will be branded as such by the PC, Multicultural types.
In our defence of course we see them as ignoring the bad and emphasising the good points of Muslim societies, or just ignoring the bad points altogether – especially if they undermine the cause of Cultural relativism.
Finally patriots, the current situation is not about “live and let live”, because Multiculturalism, if allowed to continue and fester – especially accompanied with unchecked immigration, amounts to cultural, religious, and societal suicide.
Not all points of view have right on their side. Multiculturalism, Political Correctness and Cultural Relativism are evils that are practiced by people who are eager to destroy their culture, history and religion for their own nefarious reasons.
Nationalists know this instinctively and will continue to fight tooth and nail against them.
Finally, if all of this has not convinced you, consider the following from our own history:
In 1276 the sheriff of Lincolnshire had the Earl Warrene in court to prove his rights to his land holdings to the satisfaction of the Bishop.
The Earl was asked by the judge for his documents and in reply, the Earl held up an ancient and rusty sword. Puzzled, the judge questioned his antics.
The Earl stated: ‘My lord, I took these lands by virtue of this sword and this arm, and by God I will also keep those lands by the same means.’
There is a lesson here for all who wish to roll over and allow the unworthy to take our lands. If a thing is worth keeping then it is worth fighting for and we would rather die on our feet fighting, than live our lives on our knees as slaves.