[Andropov]

It seems to me that many people from Britain, Sweden, and France, the epicenters of multiculturalism in the West, have a very arrogant and condescending attitude towards less "progressive" nations like the USA. They view their cultures and countries as morally superior because they take in immigrants and provide them with social services.

It is likely that multiculturalism is simply a kind of socio-cultural pathology- a misfiring of the natural human urge of group supremacy.

[Sithsaber]

No? Maybe it's a sign of a societies ascendance over the petty conflicts of the past? Maybe it's even a precursor to greater global union in the future. Unfortunately it cannot become complete without proper resource allocation and subtle instilling of greater ideals in the youth, without which it will fail as it currently is in the once social democratic European states of today.

PS: I'M ON A ROLE, FOR THE MUSE HAS COME. THE HOLY FIRE DOVE HAS DESCENDED UPON ME, AND I AM OFF TO TYPE AN ESSAY. DEUCES.

[Rei Murasame]

Sometimes I think that is the case, Andropov. However, I've found that it's usually Americans who praise their melting pot, not Europeans.

A lot of the centre-leftists in Europe seem - at least when I talk to them - to act uncomfortably defensive, rather than getting up on a high horse, almost as though they are asking me to give them some kind of validation for what they've done.

[Varax]

It can be. Multiculturalism like other liberal values such as democracy are often thrown about as a way of asserting moral superiority. Liberals are convinced that their moralizing of tolerance and diversity are all wonderful values to uphold. However, it is ironically a mostly western phenomena, so it allows liberals to claim that this makes them "enlightened" and "progressive" whilst other parts of the world that don’t share these values are considered racist, xenophobic, exclusionary, etc Liberals also like to think they are being moral by encouraging others to come in and share their obviously wonderful society and tend to think that we should all strive to be like them, and if we’re not then it means we need more tolerance and "sensitivity training".

So in a way it does manifest itself as a kind of chauvinistic moral supremacy - and a particularly bizarre one at that. I think that chauvinism in itself is to be expected, but the multicultural variety is probably among the most delusional and self-defeating form there is.

I think Rei is right that Europeans don’t necessarily do this more than Americans - they both have a tendency to look down on each other and the rest of the world through the lens of liberal morality.

[Quantum]

However, it is ironically a mostly western phenomena, so it allows liberals to claim that this makes them "enlightened" and "progressive" whilst other parts of the world that don’t share these values are considered racist, xenophobic, exclusionary, etc.

It depends. If they're East Asian, then they are racist but if they're in the Third World than they are primitive, which contradicts their belief in the inherent equality of human groups. Never I have known an ideology which contradicts itself nearly every sentence.

[quetzalcoatl]

Although it's possible to exaggerate its success, the inwaves of European migration were handled reasonably well in the US throughout most of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Immigrants were expected to adapt quickly to the majority culture, and in fact did so. The chauvinism of the melting pot ideology served that purpose well, until a new ideology of ethno-cultural autonomy superceded it.

Given the fact that few modern states are monocultural, it might be advantageous to revive the chauvinistic ideology that requires individual ethnic loyalties be transferred to the dominant culture. This may border on jingoism, but that is better than disintegration.

The value of such an ideology is not to trumpet moral superiority, but to insure the continuation of the nation.

[Rainbow Crow]

All you need to continue a nation is to heartlessly and mercilessly inflict the horrors of miscegenation upon the populace.

[quetzalcoatl]

All you need to continue a nation is to heartlessly and mercilessly inflict the horrors of miscegenation upon the populace.

I can never tell if you're being ironic, or just totally wigged.

[Donna]

I try to avoid posting Slavoj Zizek's articles because his public persona is often distracting, but sometimes you don't really have a choice because he's one of the few left-wing writers who is actually contributing to a serious criticism of Western social liberalism (instead of making politically correct excuses for New Left excess, which has been ritualized by socialists and communists in the West).

Liberal multiculturalism masks an old barbarism with a human face

Across Europe, the politics of the far right is infecting us all with the need for a 'reasonable' anti-immigration policy

Slavoj Zizek
The Guardian, Sunday 3 October 2010 22.00 BST

The recent expulsion of Roma, or Gypsies, from France drew protests from all around Europe – from the liberal media but also from top politicians, and not only from those on the left. But the expulsions went ahead, and they are just the tip of a much larger iceberg of European politics.

A month ago, a book by Thilo Sarrazin, a bank executive who was considered politically close to the Social Democrats, caused an uproar in Germany. Its thesis is that German nationhood is threatened because too many immigrants are allowed to maintain their cultural identity. Although the book, titled Germany Does Away with Itself, was overwhelmingly condemned, its tremendous impact suggests that it touched a nerve.

Incidents like these have to be seen against the background of a long-term rearrangement of the political space in western and eastern Europe. Until recently, most European countries were dominated by two main parties that addressed the majority of the electorate: a right-of-centre party (Christian Democrat, liberal-conservative, people's) and a left-of-centre party (socialist, social-democratic), with smaller parties (ecologists, communists) addressing a narrower electorate.

Recent electoral results in the west as well as in the east signal the gradual emergence of a different polarity. There is now one predominant centrist party that stands for global capitalism, usually with a liberal cultural agenda (for example, tolerance towards abortion, gay rights, religious and ethnic minorities). Opposing this party is an increasingly strong anti-immigrant populist party which, on its fringes, is accompanied by overtly racist neofascist groups. The best example of this is Poland where, after the disappearance of the ex-communists, the main parties are the "anti-ideological" centrist liberal party of the prime minister Donald Tusk and the conservative Christian Law and Justice party of the Kaczynski brothers. Similar tendencies are discernible in the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Hungary. How did we get here?

After decades of hope held out by the welfare state, when financial cuts were sold as temporary, and sustained by a promise that things would soon return to normal, we are entering a new epoch in which crisis – or, rather, a kind of economic state of emergency, with its attendant need for all sorts of austerity measures (cutting benefits, diminishing health and education services, making jobs more temporary) is permanent. Crisis is becoming a way of life.

After the disintegration of the communist regimes in 1990, we entered a new era in which the predominant form of the exercise of state power became a depoliticised expert administration and the co-ordination of interests. The only way to introduce passion into this kind of politics, the only way to actively mobilise people, is through fear: the fear of immigrants, the fear of crime, the fear of godless sexual depravity, the fear of the excessive state (with its burden of high taxation and control), the fear of ecological catastrophe, as well as the fear of harassment (political correctness is the exemplary liberal form of the politics of fear).

Such a politics always relies on the manipulation of a paranoid multitude – the frightening rallying of frightened men and women. This is why the big event of the first decade of the new millennium was when anti-immigration politics went mainstream and finally cut the umbilical cord that had connected it to far right fringe parties. From France to Germany, from Austria to Holland, in the new spirit of pride in one's cultural and historical identity, the main parties now find it acceptable to stress that immigrants are guests who have to accommodate themselves to the cultural values that define the host society – "it is our country, love it or leave it" is the message.

Progressive liberals are, of course, horrified by such populist racism. However, a closer look reveals how their multicultural tolerance and respect of differences share with those who oppose immigration the need to keep others at a proper distance. "The others are OK, I respect them," the liberals say, "but they must not intrude too much on my own space. The moment they do, they harass me – I fully support affirmative action, but I am in no way ready to listen to loud rap music." What is increasingly emerging as the central human right in late-capitalist societies is the right not to be harassed, which is the right to be kept at a safe distance from others. A terrorist whose deadly plans should be prevented belongs in Guantánamo, the empty zone exempted from the rule of law; a fundamentalist ideologist should be silenced because he spreads hatred. Such people are toxic subjects who disturb my peace.

On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant property: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol. And the list goes on: what about virtual sex as sex without sex? The Colin Powell doctrine of warfare with no casualties (on our side, of course) as warfare without warfare? The contemporary redefinition of politics as the art of expert administration as politics without politics? This leads us to today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism as an experience of the Other deprived of its Otherness – the decaffeinated Other.

The mechanism of such neutralisation was best formulated back in 1938 by Robert Brasillach, the French fascist intellectual, who saw himself as a "moderate" antisemite and invented the formula of reasonable antisemitism. "We grant ourselves permission to applaud Charlie Chaplin, a half Jew, at the movies; to admire Proust, a half Jew; to applaud Yehudi Menuhin, a Jew; … We don't want to kill anyone, we don't want to organise any pogrom. But we also think that the best way to hinder the always unpredictable actions of instinctual antisemitism is to organise a reasonable antisemitism."

Is this same attitude not at work in the way our governments are dealing with the "immigrant threat"? After righteously rejecting direct populist racism as "unreasonable" and unacceptable for our democratic standards, they endorse "reasonably" racist protective measures or, as today's Brasillachs, some of them even Social Democrats, tell us: "We grant ourselves permission to applaud African and east European sportsmen, Asian doctors, Indian software programmers. We don't want to kill anyone, we don't want to organise any pogrom. But we also think that the best way to hinder the always unpredictable violent anti-immigrant defensive measures is to organise a reasonable anti-immigrant protection."

This vision of the detoxification of one's neighbour suggests a clear passage from direct barbarism to barbarism with a human face. It reveals the regression from the Christian love of one's neighbour back to the pagan privileging of our tribe versus the barbarian Other. Even if it is cloaked as a defence of Christian values, it is itself the greatest threat to Christian legacy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ing-europe

For obvious reasons it is important for the egalitarian and socialist left to become self-critical of the role of multiculturalism (as well as environmentalism, feminism, human rights, etc.) in the liberal-democratic state. Failure to properly criticize a misappropriation of the reformist ideologies in the 1960s/70s will mean continued irrelevancy for far-left politics and increasing growth of the populist right and third position movements. The left needs to disengage from its subversive alliance-of-convenience with the liberal state, especially now that conservatives are being compelled toward a centredness of social liberalism. Liberals seem to experience a fascination with the simplicity of historical changes and they don't seem to acknowledge any foundation informing their conclusions other than a vaguely evolving morality or idealism. It's something thatprogressively builds itself into a weird new conformity and an even more bizarre cast of reactionaries, ranging from the Unabomber and David Koresh to Anders Breivik and Al-Qaeda.

[quetzalcoatl]

...The left needs to disengage from its subversive alliance-of-convenience with the liberal state, especially now that conservatives are being compelled toward a centredness of social liberalism...

If conservatives are being compelled toward a centeredness of social liberalism, they have an odd way of showing it - at least here in the US. Witness Senator McCain's heckling by the right over immigration in a recent Arizona town hall meeting. And Zizek himself demonstrates a rather vivid schizophrenia on the subject of immigration - at least that's my reading of ten last two paragraphs you posted.

[feihua]

It seems to me that many people from Britain, Sweden, and France, the epicenters of multiculturalism in the West, have a very arrogant and condescending attitude towards less "progressive" nations like the USA. They view their cultures and countries as morally superior because they are jealous fncks.

FYP

I am with Rei/Alpha on this one.

Non-passport carrying United States citizens are clueless to even how to handle such a comparison when presented with it because the melting pot/stew to-assimilate-or-to-respect-the-difference is so ingratiatingly ingrained.

"As snotty as the French are," I find it admirable of them if they are truly arrogant towards less progressive nations like the USA when electrified Muslims are causing riots leaving cheeseburgers as targets.

My fixing of the post is a joke. Yet, my years overseas as a minority in Japan never failed me for a giggle when this "question" came up to discussion among the gaijin. It always appeared based on jealousy and appealing to the wanna-be-liberal thinking of the modern era Japanese. No one gave a damn about how they appeared to the other westerner, the impetus of the conversation was caused by what was judged to be best to present to the Japanese.

Rather than a top ten of the superiority of the Western nations pitted against each other, I would be delighted to see a top ten of the jealousy the Western nations hold towards each other and see how well I matched up.

Indeed, multicultural ideology could very well be chauvinism. But it isn't, of course, because I obviously know a lot more than Andropov about the matter and the British will agree with me when Andropov should have said jingoism

FWIW I found it much less stressful to be in the minority. Americans are a whiny bunch of fncks but not like the British. Yet, the British can generate a genuine heartfelt laugh out of being called down and we can collectively giggle at the French while they nervously wait for us to mention how great German fashion is, all of us knowing they cannot take a compliment - God bless 'em.

No one out of Europe should be taken back by this because any minute an Ozzie can come into the discussion, gloat how they got in a fight last night and we can snicker and roll our eyes simultaneously.

[qeddeq]

Sometimes I miss the USSR which was the other half of the world, the nonfree world, or so it was said. We didn't actually know. We who lived as adults in the soviet era knew very little about it, except that we had the impression that it was very powerful. Anyway, now it's dead and they have all sorts of degeneracy there. So many comrades died for that??
However, isn't it at least debatable when someone as a citizen says that he is concerned about his way of life, his country, by hordes of immigrants? Do the immigrants indeed not change the culture? What if you don't want your culture changed because you rather like it, and others like it too. Do you invite anyone into your home or circle of friends? Why not? Because you know it would ruin that circle and upset your home. People have a right to associate based on common interests and abilities, and to exclude those who don't fit. It's definitely a debatable issue. I'm from the US so I don't care. We are already an immigrant nation. We don't have a culture anymore. I was thinking of Angela Merkel in Germany when she said multiculturalism wasn't working.

[MadMonk]

The US and European Nations are vastly different countries; in their composition, history, culture etc.

The "Can't we all just get along?"-attitude is to me almost as bereft of reality as the "Kill and enslave everyone who isn't like me"-crowd. I wish the world was much more like the former (I believe we have made tremendous strides over the past half-century) but the ideas and values it has instilled into the political and social scene has become almost like a religion, completely unquestionable and displays an arrogance that can easily be called chauvinism.

It is not the ideals that I'm against, it's the methods. What we're doing right now isn't working. The nationalists/fascists are scouring easy points against us because we can not admit our failings and thereby finding real sustainable solutions to various problems in primarily European societies today. We can no longer deny the segregation. We can no longer deny the rising wealth inequality. I'm speaking mostly out of a Swedish perspective on the subject where the entire political debate has been paralyzed for years and thus not being able deal with issues in a constructive way.

[ThirdTerm]

The average national inflow of immigrants from 2001-2010 was highest for the US with around a million immigrants followed by Germany, Spain, the UK and Japan. A country's openness to immigration may correspond with its worldwide popularity as well as economic prosperity. During the Cold War, the US was considered a model of democratic governance and it was presumed that America's economic prosperity was brought about by its democratic way of life based on the capitalist economic system, which attracted more freedom-loving immigrants than any other countries. America's sense of moral superiority over the Soviet Union was reinforced by Russia's abject poverty at the time but China has become the second largest economy in recent years despite its Communist political system, which has a corrosive effect on the supremacy of the West.


Inflow of foreign nationals by country (in thousands)
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MIG