Read the Classical liberalism section of Wikipedia, Love Thy Neighbor: A Story of War, a non-fiction book on the Bosnian war by Peter Maass, and this article at Radix Journal. Here’s a quote: “With the UC Davis incident, we are seeing how immigration and diversity end up creating a non-unified culture, and the inevitable tensions that arise between groups that hate each other. But, what we have done is take some of the most dangerous and destructive elements of the Middle East to our doorstep.”
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DEPEND ON UNICULTURALISM
Individual rights is one of those things all Classical liberals hold near and dear. It defines a whole philosophy of belief, body of law and much of our everyday thinking. In many ways, it also defines Western man himself. We believe we, as individuals, have value, rights and freedoms given to us by our creator that can never be taken away. I certainly did myself. Indeed, for a time in the recent past I was the President of the Individual Rights Party of British Columbia, now a fond memory.
The problem with the idea is that it rests on an assumption, an assumption made by all the early thinkers in the field: Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. That assumption is that the individual is living in a uniform society of like-minded individuals who have agreed on a set of fundamental beliefs involving religion, morality, law and politics. The truth is you can have individual rights only if the people around you agree on the same principles. If they don’t, all bets are off.
A brief glance at the blurb for Peter Maass’ book on Bosnia takes us right to the heart of the issue, as well as the heart of darkness:
Peter Maass went to the Balkans as a reporter at the height of the nightmarish war there, but this book is not traditional war reportage. Maass examines how an ordinary Serb could wake up one morning and shoot his neighbor, once a friend–then rape that neighbor’s wife. He conveys the desperation that makes a Muslim beg the United States to bomb his own city in order to end the misery. And Maass does not falter at the spectacle of U.N. soldiers shining searchlights on fleeing refugees–who are promptly gunned down by snipers waiting in the darkness.
It’s no good saying ‘war is Hell’ and brushing this off. Neighbours in Bosnia had lived for years with others from different faiths, different ethnicities, different politics, but when push came to shove, all the individual rights they had were thrown out the window. The hard fact is this; individual rights are impossible to protect or enforce where there are major social schisms.
That fact is reinforced it you review any of the many civil wars of recent history from the Irish ‘troubles’ to the Second Iraq War, to the Lebanese civil war to the partition of India. Everywhere there are significant differences between large groups in a society there is an absence of individual rights. The latest examples of this are the hundreds of Nigerian girls abducted by Boko Haram and sold as brides and a similar program by ISIS involving Yasis women in Iraq. None of these victims had any individual rights because their rights were trumped by ethnic and religious wars.
Scale back the violence just a little and what you get are the rights of white girls in Rotherham, England who, for years, were groomed by Muslim gangs. What rights did they have as they were passed around like beer bottles and raped repeatedly, night after night? Scale that back again and we see that areas with higher diversity in the United States have a lower sense of civic duty or social cohesion. This was famously documented by Robert D. Putnam and reported in a his book, Bowling Alone.
Here’s the bottom line. To experience the freedom promised by Classical liberals, to feel the full effects of a life of exercised individual rights, one must first find and live in a uniform, unicultural, Western society. Other unicultural societies will provide a measure of social acceptance, but only a Western unicultural society will give you the full range of rights envisioned by founders of liberalism and the English enlightenment.
Which brings up a final problem now bedeviling all Western societies; multiculturalism. Multiculturalism promotes exactly the opposite to uniculturalism. Multiculturalism promotes ethnic groups as if doing so enhances a culture rather than destroys one. Indeed, in Canada, the Multiculturalism Act makes it a civic virtue to create ethnic consciousness.
Who, you should ask, wants a society of ethnic, religious and racial mixing if that leads, as it has done elsewhere, to racial tension and civil war? The answer is that Progressives love the idea because by reducing the cohesion of the mass, it can use the government to ‘protect’ the individual against competing religions, ethnicities and races. International businesses like the idea as well because international business is opposed to nationalism in all its forms. What should you do, as an individual, to resist this trend in society? What can you do?
Oppose immigration. Oppose multiculturalism. Oppose free trade.